80
Mainstreaming climate-related disaster risk reduction in agriculture and food sectors in eastern Africa Analytical report
Mainstreaming climate-related disaster risk reduction
in agriculture and food sectors in eastern Africa
Analytical report
Mainstreaming climate-related disaster risk reduction
in agriculture and food sectors in eastern Africa
Analytical report
By
Patrick M. BAHAL’OKWIBALE
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Addis Ababa, 2017
ii
Recommended citation:
Bahal’okwibale, P. M. 2017. Mainstreaming climate-related disaster risk reduction in agriculture and food sectors in
eastern Africa: Analytical report. Addis Ababa, FAO.
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any
opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or
development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or
boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does
not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not
mentioned.
The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of
FAO.
ISBN 978-92-5-109900-1
© FAO, 2017
FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise
indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in
non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is
given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way.
All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be made via
www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to [email protected].
FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through
Cover photos:
Photo in the centre: © FAO/Karel Prinsloo Photo on the bottom left: © FAO/Assim Hafeez Photo on the bottom right: © FAO/Luca Sola
iii
Epigraph
Climate change continues to cause increased humanitarian stress as it exacerbates food
insecurity, water scarcity, conflict, migration and other trends (…).
The reality for hundreds of millions of people in conflicts, disasters or situations of
chronic poverty and deprivation is that humanity remains a daily struggle for life and
dignity, safety, food, shelter, education and health care, as well as advancement (…).
They are concerned about whether the international community can turn this vision into
a reality for each of them. Their concern must become ours, and their daily struggle our
responsibility (…).
Without urgent action, increased disaster risk, fuelled by climate change, threatens to
reach a tipping point where the effort and resources necessary to reduce it will exceed the
capacity of future generations.
UN. 2016. One humanity: shared responsibility. Report of the Secretary-General for the
World Humanitarian Summit. Item 73 (a). United Nations General Assembly. Seventieth
session. New York.
iv
v
Contents
Epigraph ........................................................................................................................................................... iii
Foreword ........................................................................................................................................................ viii
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... ix
Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................................... x
Executive summary ..................................................................................................................................... xii
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Disasters synoptic ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Prerequisites for disaster occurrence ...................................................................................... 2
2 Climatic impacts on eastern Africa livelihoods ............................................................................ 4
2.1 Main livelihoods ................................................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Prevalent agro-ecologies ................................................................................................................ 4
2.3 Climate-related vulnerabilities of the agriculture sector .................................................. 8
2.3.1 Sub-regional overview............................................................................................................ 8
2.3.1 Country-specific vulnerabilities ........................................................................................ 12
Burundi .............................................................................................................................................. 12
Djibouti .............................................................................................................................................. 14
Ethiopia.............................................................................................................................................. 14
Kenya .................................................................................................................................................. 15
Rwanda .............................................................................................................................................. 16
Somalia............................................................................................................................................... 17
South Sudan ..................................................................................................................................... 17
Uganda ............................................................................................................................................... 18
3 Agriculture-relevant approaches to reduce disaster risks ....................................................... 20
3.1 Global level ....................................................................................................................................... 20
3.2 Regional level .................................................................................................................................. 22
3.3 Sub-regional level .......................................................................................................................... 22
3.3 Country level .................................................................................................................................... 24
3.3.1 Burundi ........................................................................................................................................ 24
3.3.2 Djibouti ........................................................................................................................................ 25
3.3.3 Ethiopia ....................................................................................................................................... 26
3.3.4 Kenya ............................................................................................................................................ 29
vi
3.3.5 Rwanda ........................................................................................................................................ 31
3.3.6 Somalia ........................................................................................................................................ 32
3.3.7 Uganda ......................................................................................................................................... 33
4 Pathways to enhancing agriculture-related DRR ....................................................................... 36
4.1 Relevance of DRR governance to agriculture and food sectors ..................................... 36
4.2 Options for enhancing DRR outcomes in eastern Africa................................................... 38
4.2.1 Making early warning effective for early action in agriculture ............................. 38
4.2.2 Addressing population dynamics and constraints on natural resources .......... 40
4.2.3 Need for risk-informed and sector-specific disaster risk management plans . 43
4.2.4 Financial resource allocation and mobilization for DRR ......................................... 46
4.2.5 Linking the development and humanitarian efforts ................................................. 47
4.2.6 Transcending socio-cultural barriers .............................................................................. 48
4.2.7 Infrastructure development and technology transfer .............................................. 49
5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 51
References ...................................................................................................................................................... 52
Annex 1. List of key informants consulted in the field .................................................................. 60
Annex 2. List of participants to the technical workshop .............................................................. 63
vii
Boxes
Box 1. Selected terminology related to disaster risk reduction…………………………………………………3
Box 2. Core responsibilities of the Agenda for Humanity………………………………………………………..49
Figures
Figure 1. Main agro-ecological zones in eastern Africa .................................................................................... 4
Figure 2. Historical records of people affected by natural hazards in eastern Africa .......................... 8
Figure 3. Ranking of risk classification for countries in the eastern Africa Sub-region ................... 10
Figure 4. Records of people affected by floods, landslides and droughts in Burundi ....................... 13
Figure 5. Records of people affected by droughts and floods in Djibouti .............................................. 14
Figure 6. Records of people affected by floods and droughts in Ethiopia ............................................. 15
Figure 7. Records of people affected by floods, landslides and droughts in Kenya ........................... 16
Figure 8. Records of people affected by floods, landslides and droughts in Rwanda ....................... 16
Figure 9. Records of people affected by floods and droughts in Somalia ............................................... 17
Figure 10. Records of people affected by floods, landslides and droughts in Uganda ...................... 18
Figure 11. The Sendai framework and FAO strategic programme on resilience ................................ 21
Figure 12. Historical records of deaths induced by droughts and floods in eastern Africa ........... 38
Tables
Table 1. Abundance of main agro-ecological zones in eastern Africa......................................................... 5
Table 2. Natural potential for agricultural livelihoods in the AEZ,,,, ............................................................. 5
Table 3. Ranking of countries based on their hazards occurrence and exposure ............................. 10
Table 4. Other major disasters that occurred in Burundi ............................................................................. 13
Table 5. Records of people affected by floods and droughts in South Sudan ....................................... 18
Table 6. Snapshot on population in eastern African countries compared to global data ................ 41
viii
Foreword
This publication is a result of FAO’s regular programme on reducing disaster risk in
agriculture and food sectors. It was developed through extensive consultations with experts in
countries and through a sub-regional meeting on mainstreaming disaster risk reduction in
agriculture and food sectors in Eastern Africa. All outcomes pointed to the threats that
climate related variability and change pose to the agriculture and food sectors in the sub-
region.
Most importantly, climate related impacts were found to have prevailed for several decades in
Eastern Africa. To illustrate, the average decadal number of people affected by drought has
been multiplied seven folds between the 1981 baseline and 2011, and continues to rise. At the
same time, efforts have been substantial and managed to save lives, but more is needed to
curb the number of affected people. At the global level, countries have committed to achieve
sustainable development goals (SDGs) by 2030. There are lots of efforts to achieving SDG 1
on “No Poverty” and SDG 2 on “Zero Hunger”. In Eastern Africa, though there is some
progress to tackle both poverty and hunger, there is serious concern that climate-induced
natural hazards may hinder the sub-region to achieve these two SDGs and others.
To meet the 2030 targets for the “Future We Want” and the global promise of leaving “no
one behind”, it is crucial for countries to become smarter on their approach to reducing
climate-related disaster risks to agriculture and food sectors in Eastern Africa.
Where do we start? A lot have been done and reported. There are some books and reports on
disaster risk reduction on agriculture, yet, rarely would they specifically concern the Eastern
Africa sub-region and its context. As a fact, very few would also present the information in a
comprehensive manner on mainstreaming climate-related disaster risk reduction in Eastern
Africa’s agriculture and food sectors.
This publication thus brings knowledge to help countries in their efforts in dealing with
hazards that affect agricultural and food sectors in Eastern Africa. It is therefore a first step to
assist you, practitioners in the field and resource managers in well-informed planning and
decision-making on climate-related hazards that affect the agriculture and food sectors in
Eastern Africa.
I trust you will find useful reading it, using it, applying the knowledge and sharing it.
Patrick Kormawa, Ph.D.
FAO Sub-regional Coordinator for Eastern Africa
and Representative to Africa Union and UNECA
ix
Acknowledgements
This analytical report benefited from various inputs. Gratitude is primarily expressed to
all institutions and people (names in annexes 1 and 2), who graciously accepted to be
part of the field consultations as well as the sub-regional technical workshop. The
knowledge and experience they shared was tremendous and demonstrated their deep
concern and motivation to deal with issues explored in this report.
This product was made possible thanks to Patrick Kormawa and Edward Kilawe, whose
respective guidance and technical supervision at FAO’s Sub-regional Office for Eastern
Africa were valuable in initiating, undertaking and completing this publication.
Gratitude is equally expressed to Nina Koeksalan for the time dedicated to review the
entire report and to provide constructive observations that improved the report.
Deborah Duveskog is acknowledged for the supplementary documentation provided to
discuss findings of the report. Thanks are also due to Fikre Mulugeta and Yaw Ansah for
respectively providing insightful inputs in regard to successive changes in disaster risk
management in Ethiopia and agro-ecological potentials for fisheries and aquaculture.
Several other colleagues assisted in contacting relevant stakeholders in the countries.
Their efforts across Burundi, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia and Uganda
are acknowledged through this report. Particular thanks are therefore expressed to FAO
representation offices in those countries as well as the following colleagues: Simon
Muhindi, Hibo Mohamed Muse, Moumina Aboubaker Kako, Jeanne d’Arc Matuje
Mukamwiza and Ali Abubeker.
x
Acronyms
AAI Africa Adaptation Initiative
AEZ Agro-ecological zone
AMCEN African Ministerial Conference on the Environment
ASAL Arid and semi-arid lands
ASAL Arid and semi-arid land
CPP Country Programming Paper
DDMC District Disaster Management Committee
DDMC District Disaster Management Committee
DDPC District Disaster Policy Committee
DECOC District Emergency Coordination and Operations Centre
DFID United Kingdom’s Department for International Development
DRM Disaster risk management
DRR Disaster risk reduction
EAC East Africa Community
ECCAS Economic Community of Central African States
ECHO European Civil Protection and Humanitarian aid Operations
EDE Ending Drought Emergencies strategy
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FNS Food and nutrition security
GDP Gross domestic product
GTP Growth and Transformation Plan
IDDRSI IGAD Drought Resilience and Sustainability Initiative
IGAD Intergovernmental Authority on Development
IGADD Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development
IPC Integrated food security phase classification
JIMC Joint Intervention Management Committee
LGDP Local Government Development Plan
MIDIMAR Ministry of Disaster Management and Refugee Affairs
NDMA National Drought Management Authority
xi
NDMEC National Disaster Management Executive Committee
NDMTC National Disaster Management Technical Committee
NDP National Development Plan
NDPMC National Disaster Preparedness and Management Commission
NDRMC National Disaster Risk Management Commission
NECOC National Emergency Co-ordination and Operations Centre
NPDRR National Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction
PIF Policy Investment Framework
PSNP Productive Safety Net Programme
RPP Regional Programming Paper
SDG Sustainable development goal
SDMC Sector Disaster Management Committee
SDMC Sub-country Disaster Management Committee
SE GRC Secrétariat Exécutif de Gestion des Risques des Catastrophes (Executive Secretariat for DRM)
SHARE Supporting Horn of Africa Resilience
SIP Sector Investment Plan
SO Strategic objective
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNISDR United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USD United States of America dollar
WASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene
WB World Bank
xii
Executive summary
Climate and weather related impacts have been substantial and continue to rise in the
eastern Africa sub-region. To illustrate, the decadal average number of people affected
by droughts has been multiplied seven folds from the 1981 baseline to the 2011
records, reaching a total of 157 million people affected between 1971 and 2015 across
Burundi, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia, South Sudan and Uganda. Floods
and landslides due to intense rainfall are the other major natural hazards, having
affected more than 14 million people between 1971 and 2015.
Such high climate related impacts are due to the vulnerability of rainfed agriculture,
which employs as much as 60 percent of the population while sharing as much as 30
percent contribution to national gross domestic products. The sub-region is also
characterized by conflicts hotspots, which magnify the vulnerability to climatic impacts.
In addition, more than 90.5 percent of the sub-region is covered by drylands agro-
ecologies, of which arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs) cover 56 percent of the sub-region.
A normal characteristic of ASALs is the erratic distribution of rainfall. In addition,
inadequate agricultural practices and overexploitation in drylands lead to land
degradation and desertification, which seriously threaten the agricultural production
and, consequently, the food security of the sub-region.
As a result, of 192 countries assessed in the World, all the eight countries in the sub-
region rank among the top 37 for their risk-proneness by 2016. The high to very high
risk levels of climate-related impacts in eastern African countries are not only a factor of
hazard exposure. People’s vulnerabilities and low coping capacities constitute the major
contributing factors.
To reduce disaster risks, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030
provides global guidance through four priorities, specifically on understanding disaster
risk (Priority 1), strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk (Priority
2), investing in disaster risk reduction (DRR) for resilience (Priority 3) and enhancing
disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” (Priority 4).
Remarkable progress was noted under Priority 2 of the Sendai Framework. At the
regional (continental) level, the Africa Union Commission has developed a Programme
xiii
of Action for the Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
2015-2030. At the sub-regional level, both the Intergovernmental Authority on
Development (IGAD) and the East Africa Community (EAC) are supporting countries to
effectively mainstream DRR in eastern Africa.
Specifically to the eastern African countries, institutions, policy and legal frameworks
for disaster risk reduction have been established. Three main models were found in
setting up a DRR coordinating institution: in a line ministry (such as in the Ministry of
Home Affairs or in the Ministry of Agriculture), at a higher level (such as related to the
Office of the Prime Minister) or as a separate Ministry with mandate to coordinate
disaster risk management in collaboration with other sectors Ministries. Each of these
models has its advantages, although the first model (location in a line Ministry) may
have lesser potential to effectively mobilize multi-sectoral support.
Despite the progress in setting up institutions, major hindrances prevail in reducing
climate related risks in the food and agriculture sectors in eastern Africa. The challenges
cut across the four priorities of the Sendai Framework. To address these obstacles, this
report recommends options grouped in seven main themes:
making early warning effective for early action in agriculture;
addressing population dynamics and constraints on natural resources;
developing risk-informed sector-specific disaster risk management plans;
financial resource allocation and mobilization for DRR;
linking the development and humanitarian efforts;
transcending socio-cultural barriers; and
infrastructure development and technology transfer that are appropriate to
the agro-ecologies and climatic risks.
Key suggestions to substantiate the above options are elaborated in the report. If efforts
are not sustained in this regard, it can be foreseen that the magnitude of climate-
induced impacts in agriculture and food sectors will escalate to unbearable levels and,
consequently, reverse gains and jeopardize efforts towards food security, poverty
eradication and sustainable development in eastern Africa.
1
1 Introduction
1.1 Disasters synoptic
A disaster is defined as “a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a
society at any scale due to hazardous events interacting with conditions of exposure,
vulnerability and capacity, leading to one or more of the following: human, material,
economic and environmental losses and impacts”1.
Globally, extreme weather events, water crises and failure of climate change mitigation
and adaptation are among the top 5 disaster risks, for their likely impacts. Furthermore,
interconnections between water crises and failure of climate change adaptation are part
of the five major threats2. Disasters cause huge impacts to livelihoods and socio-
economic development. For example, in 2015, the World recorded 346 reported
disasters that killed 22,773 people while affecting 98.6 million people and resulting in
USD 66.5 billion economic losses3.
Half of the world’s most risk-prone countries are in Africa. Economic losses due to
disasters summed up to $26.6 billion from 1970 to 20124 and the continent is
experiencing a rising number of disasters. While losses in human lives decreased
between 2005 and 2015, the number of people needing immediate assistance rose.
The typology of disasters that affected most people in 2015 alone were caused by
droughts (over 50 million people affected), floods (over 27 million people affected) and
storms (over 10 million people affected). Moreover, these hazards predominated the
causes of impacts for the period 2005 to 2014. Respectively floods affected more than
85 million people, droughts affected more than 35 million people and storms affected
more than 34 million people5.
Droughts, floods and storms also represent the typology of hazards that are both
induced by weather variability or climate change and affect the agriculture and food
sectors. Consequently, between 2005 and 2014, the agriculture sector absorbed about 1 UN, 2016 2 WEF, 2017 3 UNISDR, 2015a 4 UN ECA, 2014 5 UNISDR, 2015a
2
26 percent of the total economic impact of climate-induced disasters in developing
countries. More than 80% of total economic losses caused by drought-related disasters
were on the agriculture sector6. Consequently, many developing countries have been
trapped by recurrent disasters while they could have substantially progressed towards
food security and nutrition targets7.
The 2016 State of Food and Agriculture Report also warned that the agriculture and
food sectors are threatened to miss the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
targets of ending hunger and poverty. Such a failure will be favoured by climate change
if “business as usual” is maintained in the agriculture and food sectors, irrespective of
population growth, ineffective food systems as well as unsustainable and
environmentally unsound practices for land, water, fisheries and forestry management8.
The frequency and magnitude of climate-related disasters is furthermore expected to
increase, resulting in unbearable impacts on many poor rural dwellers and smallholder
farmers under business as usual9,10,11.
1.2 Prerequisites for disaster occurrence
Adverse climatic events naturally occur worldwide. Yet, global evidence demonstrates
that low-income countries have recorded only 9% of disaster events but 48% of the
fatalities12. Similarly, eastern Africa countries (classified as either low income or lower-
middle income13) recorded similar or even a lower number of disasters events than
countries in regions such as Latin America, Europe and North America, but
disproportionally higher number of people affected by 100,000 habitants14.
6 FAO, 2017a 7 FAO, IFAD and WFP, 2015 8 FAO, 2016a 9 WB, 2010 10 Masih et al., 2014 11 FAO, 2017b 12 Munich Re., 2012 in GFDRR, 2015 13 WB, 2016 14 EM-DAT, 2016
3
To understand the basis of such disproportionate impacts, it is important to unpack the
link between hazard occurrence, disaster risk and affected subjects. Simply expressed, a
disaster risk can be summarized by the following formula15:
Box 1. Selected terminology related to disaster risk reduction16
15 Fitzgibbon and Crosskey, 2013 16 UN, 2016
A hazard is defined as “a process, phenomenon or human activity that may cause loss
of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, social and economic disruption
or environmental degradation”.
Vulnerability represents the “conditions determined by physical, social, economic and
environmental factors or processes which increase the susceptibility of an individual, a
community, assets or systems to the impacts of hazards”.
Coping capacity is the “ability of people, organizations and systems, using available
skills and resources, to manage adverse conditions, risk or disasters”.
In other words, the potential impacts of any hazard can be minimized through the
following:
Reducing the exposure to the hazard (for example, avoiding cultivation in
areas and times when floods are likely to occur);
Minimizing vulnerabilities (such as avoiding the use of crops with high water
requirements in areas susceptible to dry spells and droughts);
Increasing coping capacities (such as the development of alternative
livelihoods for the affected subjects to deal with the adverse effects of
droughts and dry spells).
Such approaches are central to disaster risk reduction, which is an approach
aiming at “preventing new and reducing existing disaster risk and managing residual
risk, all of which contribute to strengthening resilience and therefore to the
achievement of sustainable development”.
4
2 Climatic impacts on eastern Africa livelihoods
2.1 Main livelihoods
In eastern Africa, agriculture contributes substantially to national Gross Domestic
Products (GDPs). This contribution reaches as much as 30 percent in countries like
Rwanda, Ethiopia and Kenya. Many eastern Africa dwellers also sustain their livelihoods
through agriculture, particularly in rural areas. Employment through agriculture
exceeds 60 percent in countries such as Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda17.
2.2 Prevalent agro-ecologies
The main agro-ecologies in the sub-region are presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Main agro-ecological zones in eastern Africa
As illustrated in Figure 1, the eastern Africa sub-region comprises a diversity of agro-
ecologies, including arid, semi-arid, sub-humid, humid and tropical highlands (including
the sub-humid, semi-arid, humid and arid subcategories). The size of land covered by
each agro-ecological zone (AEZ) is presented in Table 1.
17 Deutsche Bank, 2014
5
Table 1. Abundance of main agro-ecological zones in eastern Africa
Ago-ecological zone Area in km2 percentage of total
Arid 895,152 26.7
Semi-arid 766,241 22.9
Sub-humid 700,236 20.9
Tropical highland sub-humid 443,101 13.2
Tropical highland semi-arid 195,691 5.8
Tropical highland humid 159,289 4.8
Humid 158,601 4.7
Tropical highland arid 32,701 1.0
Total 3,351,013 100
Excluding highlands, about 49.6 percent of the sub-region is classified as arid and semi-
arid lands (ASALs). By including highlands, over 56 percent of the sub-region is formed
by ASALs. Taking into account that drylands are formed by ASALs and sub-humid lands,
about 90.5 percent of the eastern Africa sub-region is covered by drylands. Lastly,
humid areas constitute only about 9.5 percent of the sub-region (Table 1).
As far as rainfed agriculture is concerned, the agro-ecological zones suggest the
livelihoods potential illustrated in Table 2.
Table 2. Natural potential for agricultural livelihoods in the AEZ18,19,20,21,22
Agro-ecological
zone
Rainfall and
temperature
Cropping potential Livestock and
fisheries potential
Arid Annual rainfall is
erratic and ranges
between 0 and 350
millimetre (mm);
Very high
temperatures
exacerbate potential
evapotranspiration
Naturally, the rains
cannot sustain plant
growth beyond 90 days,
without even considering
the erratic character of
the rainfall in arid
environments.
Cropping is thus
unsustainable in most
With the existence of
scattered trees,
shrubs, legumes and
short annual grasses,
livestock herding is
the main sustainable
livelihood, provided it
is carried within the
rangelands’ carrying
capacities and water
18 Ibrahim & Olaloku, 2000 19 Simmers, 2005 20 UN, 2011 21 Bahal’okwibale et al., 2012 22 FAO, 1998
6
Agro-ecological
zone
Rainfall and
temperature
Cropping potential Livestock and
fisheries potential
As a result, the aridity
index (ratio between
total annual
precipitation and
potential evapo-
transpiration) is
measured between
0.05 and 0.20; meaning
at least 80% of the
rainfall is demanded
by the atmosphere.
Open water bodies
usually dry up fast
after rainfall onset.
years, except in places
such as oases. Wadis also
constitute attractive areas
for cropping after intense
(but rare) rainfall. In fact,
in addition to the remnant
soil moisture after flash
floods, wadis are also
generally rich in
sediments.
sources are identified
and accessible.
Except for coastal
areas, the rarity of
permanent surface
water bodies renders
fisheries and
aquaculture difficult
under natural
conditions. The
salinity and
temperature of the
rare natural water
bodies also limits the
types of fish species
that can be found.
Man-made reservoirs
could be essential for
livestock watering,
fishing and cage
aquaculture.
Semi-arid Annual rainfall ranges
between 350 and 800
mm.
High temperatures are
generally experienced
The aridity index is
measured between
0.20 and 0.50; meaning
at least 50% and up to
80% of the rainfall is
demanded by the
atmosphere.
Open water bodies
usually dry up fast
after rainfall onset,
unless directly
recharged by the
aquifer.
Cropping is sustainable
for a period between 90
and 180 days, but
challenged by the erratic
distribution of rainfall.
Most of the cropping is
done by agro-pastoralists.
Livestock herding is a
predominant
livelihood in the areas.
The risk of
desertification
remains high, when
carrying capacities of
the environment are
exceeded.
Except for coastal
areas, the rarity of
permanent surface
water bodies renders
fisheries and
aquaculture difficult
in the natural
environment. The
salinity and
temperature of the
rare natural water
7
Agro-ecological
zone
Rainfall and
temperature
Cropping potential Livestock and
fisheries potential
bodies limits the types
of fish species that can
be found.
Man-made reservoirs
could be essential for
livestock watering,
fishing and cage
aquaculture.
Sub-humid Annual rainfall is
measured between
800 and 1500 mm
The aridity index is
between 0.50 and 0.65;
implying that at least
35% (but not more
than half) of the
precipitation moisture
is demanded by the
atmosphere.
Some perennial water
bodies can be found.
Conditions are ideal for
cropping a diversity of
food and cash crops,
because rainfall can
sustain plant growth
between 180 and 270
days
Livestock
development is
favoured and animals’
droppings are an
important source of
fertilizer for farmers.
The presence of
natural, open and
fresh water bodies
makes fisheries and
aquaculture normal
endeavours.
Humid Annual rainfall exceeds
1500 mm. Permanent
surface water
There is a prevalence
of perennial and open
water bodies. In some
areas, the aquifer can
be found close to the
surface. Several open
water bodies are also
naturally connected to
groundwater sources.
Rainfall can sustain plant
growth beyond 270 days
Such environments are
however prone to land
degradation due to
erosion and landslides,
when inappropriate
practices.
Humid areas are
characterized by the
occurrence of natural
forests and associated
savannahs
Agro-pastoral
activities are generally
favoured, because
animals can provide
additional support
such as meat, milk,
fertilizer and traction
for cropping activities.
The presence of
natural, open and
fresh water bodies
favours fisheries and
aquaculture.
Highlands Areas characterized by
altitudes above 1500
m. Due to the altitude,
mean temperatures at
day time remain below
Highlands generally manifest microclimates
(generally cooler), compared to their surroundings.
The temperature can either favour or hinder some
crops and livestock species to thrive. Highlands are
8
Agro-ecological
zone
Rainfall and
temperature
Cropping potential Livestock and
fisheries potential
20 degree Celsius.
also sensitive to land degradation (particularly
erosion and landslides), which raise the need for
adequate land use practices.
Fishing and aquaculture activities are limited to
mostly cold-water species.
2.3 Climate-related vulnerabilities of the agriculture sector
2.3.1 Sub-regional overview
Apart from sporadic cases of epidemics and earthquakes, there is hardly any other kind
of hazard like those of climatic origin, such as droughts and floods, which have caused
most severe impacts that recurrently affected millions of people in the eastern Africa
sub-region23.
This is evident in the impacts on food insecurity caused by the 2011-2012 drought in
the Horn of Africa, which affected about 12 million people, as well as the 2015-2016 El-
Nino/La-Nina climatic events. The recurrence of adverse climatic events leading to
catastrophic situations in eastern Africa dates long back. Since 1971, it’s more than four
consecutive decades that eastern African countries experienced disastrous impacts from
either a combination of droughts (which affect most people), floods and landslides
(which are the most frequent events) or one of the hazard types within a biennium
(Figure 2).
Figure 2. Historical records of people affected by natural hazards in eastern Africa24
23 EM-DAT, 2016 24 Processed with data from EM-DAT, 2016 and NOAA, 2016
9
As shown in Figure 2 above, the trends of impacts are rising. For instance, with regards
to drought events, the 10-years (1971-1980) average number of people affected was
below 1 million by 1981, reached 4 million in 1991, raised to 5 million in 2001 and
exceeded 7 million by 2011. Simply expressed, the number of affected people in the
1981 baseline has been multiplied seven folds by 2011. In addition, the trends are rising
and in 2015 alone, at least 14 million people were affected by El-Nino induced drought
in the sub-region. Between 1971 and 2015, the total number exceeds 157 million
people, which is like the total population of the two most populated countries of the sub-
region.
In regards to landslides and flooding events, the 10-years (1971-1980) average number
of people affected was exceeding 450 thousand in 1981, and it had dropped below 150
thousand by 1991. However, a rising impact has been observed since then. The 10-
years (1991-2000) average number of people affected exceeded 350 thousand people
by 2001 and continued to rise beyond 490 thousand by 2011. In 2015 alone, more than
one million people were affected by landslides and floods in eastern Africa. Between
1971 and 2015, the total exceeds 14 million people, which is like the total population of
the two least populated countries in the sub-region.
Figure 2 also shows that moderate to very strong El Nino and La Nina periods had
induced extreme droughts and floods events that were characterized with tremendous
effects on the number of people affected in eastern Africa. Consistent records of people
affected in such periods date back to the 1970s only. However, records of El Nino and La
Nina events dating back to 1950s demonstrate repeated moderate to very strong
events25. In addition, drought events were recorded from centuries ago and had led to
famine situations, such as the most known Nyarubanga drought that occurred in Uganda
between the 14th and 16th century26. By November 2016, all the eight eastern Africa
countries ranked among the top 37 most risk-prone countries of 192 countries assessed
in the World (Figure 3).
25 NOAA, 2016 26 Holmgren and Oberg, 2006
10
Figure 3. Ranking of risk classification for countries in the eastern Africa Sub-region27
The high to very high risk levels of climate-related impacts in eastern Africa countries
are not only a factor of hazard exposure. People’s vulnerabilities and low coping
capacities constitute the major contributing factors. Even when disregarding the high
influence of human induced hazards (wars and conflicts) on the global risk classification
of countries like Somalia, South Sudan and Burundi, it appears that populations’ lack of
coping capacity and vulnerabilities are putting the countries in the sub-region at higher
risks from natural hazards such as droughts and floods. Table 3 therefore illustrates
rankings of selected countries in the sub-region, along with countries of similar natural
hazards exposure.
Table 3. Ranking of countries based on their hazards occurrence and exposure 28
Country
So
ma
lia
So
uth
Su
da
n
Eg
yp
t
Un
ite
d S
tate
s o
f A
me
rica
Ke
ny
a
Eth
iop
ia
Rw
an
da
Bu
run
di
So
uth
Afr
ica
Ug
an
da
Dji
bo
uti
Na
mib
ia
Hazard exposure 8.9 8.2 6.3 6.0 6.0 5.6 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.8 3.6 2.4 Natural 6.8 3.7 5.5 6.9 4.9 4.3 3.2 3.0 4.4 3.4 4.9 4.1
Human (conflicts) 10.0 10.0 7.0 4.8 6.9 6.7 6.4 6.4 5.2 6.0 2.0 0.3 Vulnerability 9.5 9.1 3.3 2.3 5.7 6.7 5.8 6.5 4.0 6.4 6.0 4.0
Socio-Economic Vulnerability
9.7 9.5 2.5 1.1 4.7 6.5 6.0 6.8 3.3 5.7 6.1 4.5
Vulnerable Groups 9.2 8.5 4.1 3.3 6.5 6.9 5.6 6.1 4.7 7.0 5.8 3.4 Lack of coping capacity 8.9 9.3 4.5 2.2 6.4 6.7 5.1 6.5 4.3 7.0 6.5 5.2
Institutional 9.2 9.1 5.4 2.7 5.2 4.7 4.0 6.2 4.5 6.8 6.3 4.5 Infrastructure 8.6 9.4 3.5 1.6 7.3 8.1 6.1 6.7 4.0 7.1 6.6 5.9
Risk score 9.1 8.9 4.5 3.1 6.0 6.3 5.3 5.9 4.4 6.0 5.2 3.7 Risk level (L=Low, H=High, VH=Very High, M= Medium)
VH VH M L H H H H M H H M
Risk global rank 1 2 59 108 20 15 37 22 62 20 40 92
27 INFORM, 2016 28 INFORM, 2017
11
From Table 3, the following observations can be drawn:
All the countries’ risk scores are either high or very high. Compared to other
countries of the World that experience similar levels of hazard exposure,
countries in the eastern Africa sub-region present remarkably high levels of
vulnerability and lack of coping capacity.
It is clear that countries such as United States of America and Egypt also
experience high exposure to natural hazards. However, due to their advanced
coping capacities (particularly infrastructure development) and relatively low
vulnerability of people to the hazards, these countries have very low risk scores.
The contribution of human-induced hazards (particularly conflicts) is not
negligible in the sub-region. For example, while South Sudan ranks second on the
global risk scale, its exposure to natural hazards is far below Djibouti’s exposure
(ranking 40th on the global risk scale). Like for Somalia, the prevalence of
conflicts is another major driver of risks. A recent study has also found that
inadequate development and the lack of opportunities to sustain livelihoods has
been nurturing the potential of violence and conflicts in several parts of Africa29.
The situation highlighted above demonstrates that there is huge potential for reducing
climate-induced disasters risks in the eastern Africa sub-region. Substantial
improvements can be reached through comprehensive and systematic risk mitigation,
increasing coping capacities and reducing vulnerabilities. For example, plants, such as
cactus, can thrive in ASALs and feed livestock due to their low demand for water, high
water use efficiency, tolerance to high temperature, rapid development, and high
biomass. The cactus cladodes also possess high content in water and energy. Therefore,
in addition to infrastructure development (such as irrigation and water harvesting),
technology related to crops, livestock, natural resources management and aquaculture
can substantially reduce vulnerabilities to climate-related risks in ASALs30,31,32,33.
29 UNDP, 2017 30 FAO & ICARDA, 2017 31 Degenovine, 2011 32 Crespi & Lovatelli, 2010 33 Aguilar-Manjarrez & Nath, 1998
12
Furthermore, as agriculture is the largest consumer of freshwater, it is critical to
increase agricultural water productivity in ASALs34.
In short, there is a need to effectively mainstream disaster risk reduction through
agriculture and food sectors in the eastern Africa sub-region. Disaster risk reduction is
key to the sectors’ sustainable development and to build the resilience of food systems
to shocks and threats, protecting the most vulnerable people and their livelihoods. Due
to the expected increase in frequency and intensity of extreme weather events with
climate change, Disaster Risk Reduction is also a buffer to cope with the already felt
impacts of climate change, and contributing to adapt livelihoods and agro-ecosystems to
such changing climate conditions. Otherwise, food security and sustainable
development progress that could have been achieved will continue to be iteratively
hindered. Prior to dwelling on approaches to DRR in the sub-region, the following
section explores country-specific vulnerabilities to climate-specific hazards.
2.3.1 Country-specific vulnerabilities
Burundi
Burundi has not experienced many disasters from droughts. Still, whenever a drought
hits, tens of thousands of people are affected. The peak was recorded in 2005 when at
least two million people were affected by drought. The country has thus demonstrated a
high vulnerability to droughts. The years that were marked by drought induced
disasters were 1999, 2005, 2008 and 2009. Floods and landslides due to heavy rains are
the most recurrent disasters in the country, affecting an average of six thousand people
every year since 2000; this does not consider the peak in 2007 that affected more than
two million people in the country (Figure 4). Other major disasters that occurred in the
country include earthquakes, storms and epidemics (Table 4).
34 Simmers, 2005
13
Figure 4. Records of people affected by floods, landslides and droughts in Burundi35
Table 4. Other major disasters that occurred in Burundi
Year Disaster
type
Occurrence Total
deaths
Affected Injured Homeless Total
affected
1992 Epidemic 1 220 2,068 2,068
1997 Epidemic 2 21 24,350 24,350
1999 Storm 1 30,810 30,810
2000 Epidemic 3 308 730,591 100 730,691
2002 Epidemic 3 87 2,163 2,163
2004 Earthquake 1 3 120 120
2010 Storm 1 9 1,500 1,500
2011 Epidemic 1 12 600 600
Table 4 shows that Burundi has experienced other kinds of disasters, mainly epidemic,
storms and earthquakes. Epidemics have been the most recurrent, as recorded in 1992,
1997, 2000, 2002 and 2011. They have affected more than 1.3 million people and
caused the death of at least 700 people. The country is also characterized by natural
resources degradation that increases its vulnerability to disasters. Agriculture
productivity is declining due to erosion and inadequate soil management. In addition,
35 Processed with data from EM-DAT, 2016
14
due to heavy reliance on fuelwood, deforestation and land degradation are
accelerating36.
Djibouti
Djibouti has been affected by both floods and droughts, almost in the same level of
magnitude (Figure 5). Human settlements in risk prone areas are not yet effectively
managed to counter the effects of hazards such as floods.
Figure 5. Records of people affected by droughts and floods in Djibouti37
On average, as shown in Figure 5, at least 120 thousand people (more than 12 percent of
the country’s population) have been affected annually by droughts between 1977 and
2010. In regards to floods, the annual average is over 80 thousand people (more than 8
percent of the entire population).
Ethiopia
Ethiopia has been affected by recurrent hazards. Although there have been outbreaks of
diseases epidemics, there is a predominance of climate-induced hazards, particularly
droughts and floods. Figure 6 illustrates the records of these events in Ethiopia since
1971.
36 WFP, 2008 37 Processed with data from EM-DAT, 2016
15
Figure 6. Records of people affected by floods and droughts in Ethiopia 38
Figure 6 shows that:
Ethiopia’s population has been affected by both floods and droughts, since more
than four decades;
Flooding events have been more frequent than droughts. When a drought event
hits, however, its number of people affected is far higher than the number of
people affected by a flood event. To illustrate, since 1973, none of the flood
events have exceeded 500 thousand people affected. On the other hand, the
minimum record for droughts impacts was 986 thousand people in 1997; other
records being in millions up to 12.6 million in 2003 and 10.2 million in 2015.
Since 1997, both droughts and floods with significant impacts were recorded in
the same year.
Kenya
Kenya’s population has been affected by both floods and droughts, since more than four
decades. Flooding events have also been more frequent than droughts. However, when
a drought event hits, its number of people affected is far higher than the number of
people affected by a flood event. To illustrate, since 1971, none of the flood events have
38 Processed with data from EM-DAT, 2016
16
exceeded one million people affected. On the other hand, the records for droughts
impacts reached up to 23 million people affected in 1999 (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Records of people affected by floods, landslides and droughts in Kenya39
Rwanda
Disasters that affect most people in Rwanda are heavy rains, floods, landslides,
droughts, fire, earthquakes, diseases and epidemics. Floods and landslides are the most
frequent events affecting most people in Rwanda. To some extent, droughts, when they
occur, affect large numbers of the population (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Records of people affected by floods, landslides and droughts in Rwanda40
39 Processed with data from EM-DAT, 2016 40 Processed with data from EM-DAT, 2016
17
Somalia
Somalia has been affected by both floods and droughts, since more than four decades.
Flooding events have been more frequent than droughts. When a drought event hits, its
number of people affected is far higher than the number of people affected by a flood
event. Since 2008, the impacts of droughts have become higher (Figure 9). Progress was
slow in developing a national policy for disaster risk management, probably due to the
instability that has prevailed. However, the country has been one of the few in the sub-
region with a high level unit for coordinating disaster response, directly related to the
Office of the Prime Minister41.
Figure 9. Records of people affected by floods and droughts in Somalia42
South Sudan
Records show that, within the last decade, flooding events have been more frequent
than droughts in South Sudan. A major drought event was reported for only the year
2009. However, the number of people affected by the single drought event in South
Sudan is much higher than the total number of people affected by five years of flood
events altogether (Table 5).
The country has undertaken steps to develop a national policy for disaster risk
management. To deal with disaster issues, two ministries take the lead, depending on
the kind of disaster that strikes. These ministries are the Ministry of Environment and
the Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and Disaster Management. To date, a key reference
41 GWPEA, 2015 42 Processed with data from EM-DAT, 2016
18
document in the country is the Five Years Strategic Plan on Disaster Management (2013-
2018)43.
Table 5. Records of people affected by floods and droughts in South Sudan44
Year Affected by flood Affected by drought
2008 92,791
2009 4,300,000
2010 290,000
2012 157,000
2013 581,000
Total 1,120,791 4,300,000
Uganda
The top-three disasters to affect most people in Uganda were ranked in the following
order: conflicts, epidemics (such as cholera), famine induced by drought and
environmental degradation45. During past decades, environmental degradation was
reinforced by population growth with limited assets, thus suddenly relying on natural
resources (particularly forest wood) overexploitation to secure their livelihoods46. This
situation has increased the recurrence and impacts of landslides. The highest number of
people affected by disasters was linked with weather related events, notably droughts,
landslides and floods. Figure 10 provides a snapshot of people affected by these
phenomena in Uganda since 1970s.
Figure 10. Records of people affected by floods, landslides and droughts in Uganda47
43 GWPEA, 2015 44 Processed with data from EM-DAT, 2016 45 Mayega et al., 2013 46 IPC, 2010 47 Processed with data from EM-DAT, 2016
19
Figure 10 shows that:
o Uganda’s population has been affected by floods, landslides and droughts, since
about four decades.
o Landslides and flooding events have been more frequent than droughts.
o When a drought event hits, its number of people affected is far higher than the
number of people affected by a flood or landslide event. To illustrate, since 1979
and except in 2007, none of the flood events have exceeded two hundred people
affected. On the other hand, the records for droughts impacts reached up to 1.1
million people affected in 2008 alone.
From the above review of countries’ recorded impacts and consultations with key
experts, the following common characteristics can be emphasised:
Flooding and landslides events due to heavy rains have been more frequent than
droughts. When a drought event hits, however, its number of people affected is far
higher than the number of people affected by a flood event.
The impacts of conflicts, intertwined with climatic events, is not negligible for food
and nutrition security.
Natural resources degradation is a prevailing phenomenon that increases countries’
vulnerability to climate-related hazards. Agriculture productivity is also weakening
due to erosion and inadequate soil management. The heavy reliance on fuelwood as
energy source also accelerates deforestation and land degradation.
20
3 Agriculture-relevant approaches to reduce disaster risks
3.1 Global level
Globally, as countries were looking forward to the expected outcome of “substantial
reduction of disaster risk and losses in lives, livelihoods and health and in the economic,
physical, social, cultural and environmental assets of persons, businesses, communities
and countries”, the Third United Nations World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction
was held from 14 to 18 March 2015 in Sendai, Japan. As a result and building on several
consultations, countries adopted the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
2015–2030. To achieve the framework’s goal, four priorities for action were adopted,
building on the Hyogo Framework for Action48:
Priority 1: Understanding disaster risk;
Priority 2: Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk;
Priority 3: Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience;
Priority 4: Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build
Back Better”.
Compared to its successor, the Sendai Framework represents a shift to a wider multi-
hazard risk management approach, which includes transboundary, technological and
biological hazards and disasters. It gives more emphasis for sectoral engagement in the
planning and delivery of DRR, to the importance of science and technology in policy-
making and the focus onto “Build Back Better” during recovery, rehabilitation and
reconstruction.
The Sendai Framework recognizes disaster risk reduction as essential to sustainable
development. In this regard, the framework pinpoints its value to a broad range of
sectors such as health and safety, climate change and variability, environmental
management and food security. Specific innovative elements of the Sendai Framework
from a food security and agriculture perspective include the call for more coherent
development policies comprising food security, and the role of social safety-net
48 UNISDR, 2016b
21
mechanisms and the need to protect livelihoods and productive assets including
livestock, working animals, tools and seeds.
Reducing and managing disaster risks in agriculture, forestry and fisheries and
increasing the resilience of the most vulnerable people is at the heart of the endeavours
of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO’s fifth
strategic programme on “increasing the resilience of livelihoods to threats and
disasters” catalyses enhanced support to countries and communities, providing
multidisciplinary expertise to better address the nexus between food security, nutrition
and disaster risk reduction. The four pillars of FAO strategic programme on resilience49
contribute and are aligned to the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (Figure
11).
Figure 11. The Sendai framework and FAO strategic programme on resilience
49 FAO, 2013
22
3.2 Regional level
At the regional level, Africa was the first continent to adopt the Sendai Framework for
disaster risk reduction. Informed by a baseline study, the Africa Regional Strategy for
Disaster Risk Reduction was devised by the African Union, taking note that DRR policies
and institutional frameworks have been developed in several countries, although at
various stages of completeness. The Strategy was thus elaborated with six objectives:
(1) increase political commitment to disaster risk reduction; (2) improve identification
and assessment of disaster risks; (3) enhance knowledge management for disaster risk
reduction; (4) increase public awareness of disaster risk reduction; (5) improve
governance of disaster risk reduction institutions; and (6) integrate of disaster risk
reduction in emergency response management. The Strategy was adopted at the 10th
Meeting of the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN) in July
200450.
To facilitate the implementation of the regional strategy, a Programme of Action for the
Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 in Africa
was formulated. The Programme of Action provides a continental framework for the
involvement of several institutions at various levels such as the Africa Union, Regional
Economic Commissions, national government ministries, the civil society and the United
Nations agencies, funds and programs51.
3.3 Sub-regional level
At the sub-regional level, United Nations and other international organizations have put
efforts in DRR for food security and nutrition in the eastern Africa sub-region. For
example, in 2012, FAO renewed its commitment to ending hunger in the Horn of Africa,
recognizing the need for long-term investment in drought resilience as the only
sustainable solution. FAO also implemented actions to link relief and longer-term
development, strengthened early warning systems, building drought resilience for
improved food and nutrition security, contributing to the development and
implementation of food security policies, and scaling up successful programs such as
cash-for-work activities that help stimulate local markets and production of smallholder
50 AU, 2004 51 AU, 2016
23
farmers and pastoralists. Early warning, disaster risk reduction and management and
safety net programs were pinpointed as key to building resilience in eastern Africa52.
In addition, sub-regional countries agreed since 1986 to establish the
Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development (IGADD), which was then
transformed in 1996 into the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) in
eastern Africa. After the 2010-2011 drought led to famine in eastern Africa, a Summit
convened Heads of State and Government of IGAD and the East Africa Community (EAC)
member states in Nairobi in September 2011. They acknowledged the inappropriate
focus on emergency relief in the sub-region, considering the increase in magnitude and
frequency of droughts. This triggered a great shift towards more forward-looking and
proactive approaches reflected in the design of the IGAD Drought Resilience and
Sustainability Initiative (IDDRSI) Strategy. Among its seven priorities, the IDDRSI
Strategy establishes a priority intervention area on Disaster Risk Management,
Preparedness and Effective Response53.
The summit in 2011 paved the way for action-oriented partnerships such as the Global
Alliance for Action for Drought Resilience and Growth. Although driven by the need to
address recurrent crises caused by droughts, the example of Kenya and the Horn of
Africa show the importance of political will and international support to reduce the risk
of these crises to happen.
As far as DRR is concerned in the sub-region, the IDDRSI Strategy focus can be
summarized as drought resilience in drylands pastoral and agro-pastoral systems. On
one hand, this is well connected with drought-triggered past events and the prevalence
of drylands characterized by pastoral and agro-pastoral systems in eastern Africa. In
terms of geographical scope, IGAD Member States are currently Djibouti, Eritrea,
Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and Uganda. In addition, as far as climatic
issues are concerned, other countries members of the East African Community (EAC)
and Greater Horn of Africa (namely Burundi, Rwanda and Tanzania) are convened in
IGAD-led technical meetings54 and projects55.
52 FAO, 2012 53 IGAD, 2013b 54 IGAD, 2015 55 IGAD, 2012
24
In regards to the EAC (which comprises six countries, namely Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda,
South Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda), DRR is mainstreamed across all sectors,
particularly in the EAC Strategy’s Priority Area 4 on Sustainable natural resource
management, environmental conservation, and mitigation of effects of climate change
across the east African region. Under this priority area, the EAC recognizes the need to
implement the African Regional Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction and the Hyogo
Framework for Action56. Furthermore, the EAC developed the “East African Community
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Bill” in April 201357. The Bill first underwent
“public hearings” consultations held in Member States in June and July 2013 in order to
solicit general views from the stakeholders of the Bill58. Subsequent to the feedback and
review, the Bill was passed by the EAC Parliamentarians in March 201659. The Bill is
drafted as a comprehensive framework for all types of disasters.
The understanding of the DRR policy issue at the sub-regional level is not enough to
address DRR issues, if it is not relayed or enhanced in the countries. The following
section will thus explore the understanding of the issue at country level.
3.3 Country level
The following section explores the understanding of the DRR policy issue in eight
eastern African countries as grouped by FAO, namely Burundi, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya,
Rwanda, Somalia, South Sudan and Uganda.
3.3.1 Burundi
In regards to DRR, the country has an existing structure to deal with disaster risks. The
structure is hosted in a line ministry (the Civil Protection Department). One of the issues
hindering its capacity lies with limited financial resources. More than 50% of financial
resources in the DRR sector originate from donors and partners in respect to targeted
programs and projects. There is not a specific national legislation to deal with DRR,
although sectoral laws integrate aspects of DRR such as60:
The Strategy for growth and poverty reduction,
56 EAC, 2011 57 UNISDR, 2016a 58 EAC, 2013 59 UNISDR, 2016a 60 Burundi, 2015
25
The National Sanitation Policy and operational strategy to 2025,
The Water Act, 2013
In addition, the country has developed strategic documents such as:
The National Strategy for Disaster Risk Mitigation and Management and National
Action Plan 2012-201561, which maps the country’s risk profile, information and
communication as well as capacities for disaster management and risk
mitigation. Some of the challenges identified include the coordination capacity as
well as financial resources allocation to disaster risk reduction. The action plan
identified several aspects, particularly establishing and strengthening a
multisector disaster risk management commission at the government level to
facilitate coordination, the elaboration of a disaster risk management policy, and
the allocation of financial resources to the DRR sector.
The National Communication Strategy for climate change adaptation and early
warning on extreme weather events (2014-2018)62, which outlines the role of
communication to link early warning to early action.
3.3.2 Djibouti
There exists a national law on policy for disaster risk management (Loi n°
140/AN/06/5ème L), enacted in March 2006. As a follow up to setting the institutional
framework, a presidential decree was proclaimed in July 2006 and established a
multisector ministerial committee chaired by the Prime Minister, a multisector technical
committee chaired by the Ministry of Interior and the Executive Secretariat for DRM (SE
GRC) to coordinate DRM (Décret n° 2006-0192/PR/MID). The country has developed a
national strategy for disaster risk management which follows a multi-hazard approach.
The DRR sector does not have adequate financial resources and heavily relies on
external funding, which hinders the effective implementation of the strategy63.
61 Burundi, no date 62 Burundi, 2014 63 UNISDR, 2014
26
3.3.3 Ethiopia
In Ethiopia, disaster risk management is recognized in several policies. It is one of the
countries to have integrated disaster and climate risk issues in National Adaptation
Plans64. Several policies and strategies address disaster risk management in the country,
particularly the first Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP I), the GTP II, the Disaster
Risk Management Policy, and the Agriculture sector Policy Investment Framework
(PIF). A paradigm shift has progressively arisen and led to doing business differently by
moving away from a system that mainly focused on drought and supply of life saving
relief emergency assistance during disaster to a comprehensive disaster risk
management approach. Unlike in the past, the shift is being implemented with the aim of
reducing disaster risks and potential consequences of disasters by providing
appropriate and timely responses to disasters before, during, and after the disaster
period at all levels and through a coordinated, accountable and decentralized system.
To facilitate the full implementation of this reoriented approach and direction with
participation of all concerned bodies and support of legal frameworks, the National
Disaster Risk Management and Strategy has been formulated by amending the National
Policy on Disaster Prevention and Management, which has been under implementation
since 1993. The policy includes general directions and major implementation strategies
with a vision to see capacity for withstanding the impact of hazards and related
disasters strengthened at national, local, community, household and individual levels;
and damages caused by disasters are significantly reduced.
The Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP)
Considered as the first national development strategy, the GTP I was first developed for
the period 2010-2015 with the perspective “to build an economy which has a modern
and productive agricultural sector with enhanced technology and an industrial sector that
plays a leading role in the economy; to sustain economic development and secure social
justice; and, increase per capita income of citizens so that it reaches at the level of those in
middle-income countries.”65
64 UNISDR, 2015b 65 FDRE, 2010b
27
In consideration for the predominance and the increase in recurrence, intensity and
severity of climate-induced disasters that resulted in food security challenges in the
country, the GTP I approached disaster risk management with a strong focus on early
warning and increasing storage capacity of food security reserves. 66
In evaluating the GTP I implementation, the GTP II document pinpoints that the capacity
of the food security reserves remained constant until 2014/1567. The GTP II also pays a
special attention to food security as far as disasters are concerned. In this regard, the
GTP II planned to increase the capacity of the food security reserve from 405,000 metric
tons that were there in 2014/2015 to 1.5 million metric tons in 2019/202068. In 2016,
the National Disaster Risk Management Commission (NDRMC) produced an assessment
of food supply needs resulting from the 2015-2016 El Nino, which showed that needs
substantially increased69. This emphasises the vulnerability to climatic effects.
The Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP) is another key programme for disaster
risk management and sustained through the GTP II phase. The PSNP was expected to
continually increase the number of beneficiaries from 3.4 million in 2014/2015 to 8.3
million by 2019/20, while producing 5,001,116 graduates from the program and
increasing the number of chronically food insecure household who can build assets
through credits to reach 628,850 households by 2019/2020.
The Agriculture Sector Policy and Investment Framework (PIF), was developed to
provide a strategic framework for the prioritization and planning of investments that will
drive Ethiopia’s agricultural growth and development from 2010 to 2020 70. As expected,
with an emphasis on agriculture sector, the PIF also focuses the Disaster Risk
Management aspects on food security.
Climate Resilient Green Economy is the country’s strategy regarding climate change71,
elaborated in 2011 with the purpose to engage through a green growth path to
development. This means achieving economic development in a sustainable way despite
the vulnerability to climate change that the country experiences.
66 FDRE, 2010b 67 FDRE, 2016 68 FDRE, 2016 69 NDRMC, 2016a 70 FDRE, 2010a 71 FDRE, 2011
28
The National Policy and Strategy on Disaster Risk Management (of 2013) replaced the
National Policy on Disaster Prevention and Management (of 1993). The 1993 policy was
triggered by the recurrence and magnitude of drought-induced food insecurity and,
therefore, had a strong focus on disaster response for food security. This policy thus
facilitated the establishment of:
o The Emergency Food security Reserve Administration;
o The National Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Fund;
o The National Early Warning Committee; and
o The Crisis Management Group.
All these units were based at the federal level. In this regard, although some disaster
cases could be handled locally or at a lower level, they were handled by the federal
government and, consequently, timely and appropriate intervention appeared difficult.
There were also major gaps in community involvement and a weak link between early
warning and response, and a strong focus on relief, particularly food aid72. The 2013
policy and strategy thus remarkably expanded the focus and approach by73:
o integrating other aspects of disaster risk reduction (particularly
preparedness and recovery) as key aspects of its objectives;
o considering multi-sectoral and multi-hazard perspectives. The strategy
thus planned to establish the Disaster Risk Management Council at
national level (chaired by the Prime Minister) to coordinate disaster risk
management activities of all sectoral DRM plans developed under each a
lead sector government institution;
o integrating aspects of increasing the coping capacity of people by, among
its objectives, aiming to “reduce dependency on and expectations for relief
aid by bringing attitudinal change and building resilience of vulnerable
people”;
o considering disaster risk management as an integral aspect of the
development framework, thus moving beyond a disaster relief focus;
o establishing disaster profiling approach to inform disaster risk reduction
interventions and resources allocation; and
o proposing to establish disaster risk coordination structures at all levels.
72 FDRE, 2013b 73 FDRE, 2013a
29
Activities related to Disaster Prevention, Preparedness and Management are thus all
coordinated by the National Disaster Risk Management Commission (NDRMC), which
currently reports directly to the Office of the Prime Minister74.
3.3.4 Kenya
To deal with disasters in the country, a National Policy for DRR was prepared since
1999, but is yet to be enacted. Nevertheless, the principles of DRR appear to have been
mainstreamed in the country and partners’ interventions. To illustrate, in the
agriculture sector, some DRR principles are mainstreamed through the Agriculture
Sector Development Strategy75. Kenya also appears to have a strong capacity to
mobilize resources for disaster response. The “Kenyans for Kenya” initiative is an
illustration of strong capacity for resource mobilization within the country, having
mobilized more than 8 million USD to respond to the 2011 drought using ICT campaigns
and mobile money transfers76. Capacity to mobilize external funding from multiple
donors is also very strong77.
There are also many other sub-sectoral policies and strategies, such as National Roots
and Tuber Crops Policy, National Horticulture Policy, National Seed Policy, National
Irrigation Policy, Water Harvesting and Storage Policy, Land Use Policy and Spatial Plan,
National Agribusiness Strategy, Vision 2030 MTIP for Northern Kenya and Other Arid
Lands, Climate Change Response Strategy and the Country Programming Paper (CPP)
“Ending Drought Emergencies in Kenya: A commitment to sustainable solutions.”
In addition, the recurrence and impacts of droughts have triggered the establishment of
the National Drought Management Authority (NDMA) to coordinate drought disaster
interventions in the country.78
NDMA is one of the remarkable national institutions in addressing disaster risk
management. To illustrate, NDMA has spearheaded the development of the “Ending
drought emergencies common programme framework” in 2015. This framework serves
as a reference to all stakeholders, as it is based on the Ending Drought Emergencies
74 INFORM, 2016 75 Kenya, 2010 76 IFRC, 2012 77 Resilience Investments Tracker, 2016 78 Kenya, 2012
30
strategy (EDE) for the period 2012-2022. The NDMA itself was created in 2011, after the
IGAD Summit of 2011. NDMA prepared EDE as a sector plan of Kenya’s Second Medium
Term Plan (MTP II, 2013-2017). The MTPs I, II and III are designed and expected to
operationalize Kenya’s Vision 2030. This vision is the country’s blueprint facilitating the
implementation of anything aligning with it, with or without a specific policy.
The IGAD summit recommended that every member country puts in place a strategy to
end drought emergencies. The EDE is thus a further derivation from the IDDRSI CPP for
Kenya. The CPP could not be implemented in the country the same way it was designed,
the reason why it had to be refined.
NDMA has now developed the EDE Common Programming Framework, which
establishes coordination mechanisms under NDMA’s responsibility for all actors and
groups at National, County, and Development Partners. In terms of food security, there
are two main groups working with NDMA at national level, respectively Kenya Food
Security Steering Group (which comprises technical teams from partners such as WFP,
FAO and others) that reports to the Kenya Food Security Meeting Group (which
comprises representatives of all those organizations at decision making level).
Through this coordination, NDMA has five main roles carried up through consultation
with all partners as following:
Role on information for decision-making:
o Production of early warning bulletins, regularly published monthly for
each of the 23 counties, with consultation at all levels (including counties
and partners)
o Assessment bulletins, describing what happened for the past 3 months
period
Role on response
o Contingency plans preparation with partners
o Drought response phases, setting standards for the different counties in
the different sectors
Long term sustainable development to enhance resilience
o Setting standards on what to do where, making sure interventions for
development look forward to a disaster risk reduction approach
Knowledge management for evidence-based actions
o Research
o Documentation of lessons learned
o Awareness, good practices
31
The EDE integrates DRR into drought management through two approaches. As an
immediate and a short-term phenomenon, drought is managed as it occurs. On the other
hand, by considering long term development targets, sustainable development is
envisaged to ensure interventions do not lower people’s resilience to droughts. Overall,
the purpose is to minimize drought impact by 2022.
The main lessons from the success in Kenya Drought DRR resides in:
- The government buy in and ownership in the efforts through the coordination by
NDMA;
- The existence of a strategic document to guide interventions and which is
adopted at high level in the country.
3.3.5 Rwanda
Rwanda had a 2009 Policy on disaster risk management, which was revised into the
2012 National Disaster Management Policy. The current policy was developed based on
a sound understanding of the country disasters profile, which is described in the policy
document79.
The policy articulates a decentralized, multi-sectoral and multi-hazard approach to DRR.
In addition, it establishes all coordination for DRR under the responsibility of the
Ministry of Disaster Management and Refugee Affairs (MIDIMAR). This ministry thus
takes the lead of DRR in all sectors, supported by the most relevant sector ministry as
co-lead and other concerned ministries as members in the particular disaster type.
Ministries are members of the National Disaster Management Executive Committee
(NDMEC), which is the highest body in the institutional framework for disaster
management in the country80.
The country’s DRR institutional framework include the following six bodies:
The National Disaster Management Executive Committee (NDMEC), which is the
highest body for decision-making and strategic advice to the government in
regards to disaster risk management. It is composed of selected key ministries
(other ministries can be invited if required), chaired by MIDIMAR and the
Ministry of Defense as vice-chair.
79 MIDIMAR, 2012 80 MIDIMAR, 2012
32
The National Disaster Management Technical Committee (NDMTC), composed of
focal points from Ministries in NDMEC, supports planning and technical advice
for the NDMEC.
The District Disaster Management Committees (DDMC), which is entirely
responsible for DRR in the district. It is chaired by the District Mayor and
collaborates closely and under the leadership of MIDIMAR where required.
Sector Disaster Management Committees (SDMC), which is the closest level to
the communities, is in charge of mobilizing communities to carry out DRR
activities, such as understanding their vulnerabilities, preparedness,
mainstreaming local and indigenous knowledge, and liaising with the district
level as required.
National Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction (NPDRR), regroups all non-
governmental humanitarian partners and the private sector81 in the country to
facilitate coordination of their activities in the areas of their comparative
advantage in regards to DRR. It is chaired by MIDIMAR and co-chaired by the
United Nations Resident Coordinator.
The UN/MIDIMAR Joint Intervention Management Committee (JIMC), is
composed of representatives at decision-making level of MIDIMAR and relevant
agencies of the United Nations (UN). The JIMC facilitates collaboration between
the UN and MIDIMAR.
Based on each disaster type with potential to affect the country, specific policy actions
are outlined. Responsibilities for policy implementation are further established through
a subsidiarity approach at the lowest possible level. The financial requirements for the
policy implementation were established to be mobilized at all levels of regular
development programs and national budget. Only when the lowest level is unable to
cope, then it can call for support at the immediately high level.
3.3.6 Somalia
Several international organizations have established programs to support disaster
management activities in the country. One of these is the FAO supported Somalia Water
and Land Information Management (FAO SWALIM), which has been critical in early
81 The private sector’s role is considered as key to ensure that the services and commodities they provide to the public are available and mobilized in times of disasters.
33
warning and preparedness82. A new national institution has been recently approved and
established: the Somali Disaster Management Agency (SoDiMA). Its role is to coordinate
the whole sector of Disaster Risk Management.
3.3.7 Uganda
To develop the country, Uganda elaborated a national vision, launched in 2010 and
entitled “Uganda Vision 2040”. The vision statement is “A Transformed Ugandan Society
from a Peasant to a Modern and Prosperous Country within 30 years”. The
implementation was planned for 30 years through three 10-year plans, six 5-year
National Development Plans (NDPs), Sector Investment Plans (SIPs), Local Government
Development Plans (LGDPs), Annual work plans and Budgets.83
The Uganda Vision is an indication of a multi-sectoral and detailed level of planning
responsibilities established in the country. The vision was developed under the
coordination of the National Planning Authority. The vision also recognized that climate
change and other disasters needed to be tackled effectively in the country. In this
regard, the vision suggested the establishment of “clear milestones and analytical tools”
in order to monitor the country’s progress in dealing with climate change issues.
Specifically to disaster risk management, Uganda has a National Policy for Disaster
Preparedness and Management since 2011. As clearly stated in the policy document, the
goal is “to reduce vulnerability levels, risk mitigation, disaster prevention, preparedness,
effective response and recovery in a manner that integrated disaster risk management
with development planning and programming”. The policy was developed in a
comprehensive approach and through consultations with a wide range of stakeholders,
from communities in rural villages through the districts to stakeholders at national
level, including all the lead sectors, local governments, international development and
humanitarian partners, the private sector and the NGOs. The policy also sets a
framework for coordination with the Government playing a supportive role and citizen
being responsible for disaster risk management. 84
82 SWALIM, 2016 83 Uganda, 2010 84 Uganda, 2011
34
The policy sought to85:
o Set the overall policy goal and objectives for disaster risk management
o Provide a broad policy framework for the harmonization of sectoral and
cross-sectoral policy objectives, principles and strategies
o Establish an integrated and multi sectoral approach to disaster
preparedness and management
o Promote positive behavioral and attitudinal change towards disaster
preparedness and management
o Provide a basis for the formulation of a comprehensive disaster
preparedness and management legal framework
o Establish an institutional framework for disaster preparedness and
management
o Establish an effective monitoring and evaluation system analysis and
dissemination of disaster preparedness and management information
o Provide for an effective information management system to facilitate
collection, storage, analysis and dissemination of disaster preparedness
and management information
Coordination of the policy implementation was established under the Department of
Relief, Disaster Preparedness and Management in the Office of the Prime Minister.
Responsible institutions for implementation were established in the following order86:
o The President of the Republic
o The Cabinet
o The Ministerial Policy Committee on disaster risk management
o The Department of Relief, Disaster Preparedness and Management
o The Inter-Agency Technical Committee
o The National Disaster Preparedness and Management Commission
(NDPMC)
o The National Emergency Co-ordination and Operations Centre (NECOC)
o The City Disaster Policy Committee
o The City Disaster Management Committee
85 Uganda, 2011 86 Uganda, 2011
35
o The District Disaster Policy Committee (DDPC)
o The District Disaster Management Committee (DDMC)
o The District Emergency Coordination and Operations Centre (DECOC)
o The Sub-country Disaster Management Committees (SDMC)
o The Village Disaster Management Committee
Furthermore, for different sectors, lead responsible institutions and actions needed for
disaster risk reduction were clearly identified in the Policy document. Overall, from the
20 categories of disasters targeted in the policy document (both human induced and
natural hazards), 11 of them concern the food security and nutrition sector; thus
involving the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries87. On the level of
Mainstreaming DRR in sectorial policies, Uganda also represents a good example. The
Uganda National Environment Action Plan (NEAP) of 1995 included already concepts,
such as “climate strategies: disaster preparedness and early warning”, acknowledging
disaster risk reduction as an entry point to climatic change adaptation.
As illustrated through this section, institutions and legal frameworks for disaster risk
management have been established in the countries, although with different models.
This is substantial progress, which is however hindered by some weaknesses. The
following section, based on ideas collected through consultations with experts in the
countries, will therefore explore options for enhancing effectiveness of established
institutions to proactively reduce disaster risks that affect the agriculture and food
sectors in eastern Africa.
87 Uganda, 2011
36
4 Pathways to enhancing agriculture-related DRR
Many countries have developed policies and frameworks for DRR. Yet, to be effective in
the agriculture, food security and nutrition sectors, sector specificity needs to be
integrated through the design and implementation of multi-sectoral DRR policies and
objectives88. This section firstly summarizes the relevance of DRR governance in eastern
Africa’s agriculture and food sectors. Secondly, the section presents options for
enhancing DRR outcomes in eastern Africa’s agriculture and food sectors.
4.1 Relevance of DRR governance to agriculture and food sectors
In regard to understanding the policy issue and endorsing related recommendations,
several consultations revealed that managers and policy-makers understand that
climate-induced disasters pose a threat to the agriculture and food sectors in particular,
and sustainable development in general. This understanding is echoed in several policy
statements and frameworks endorsed by countries. An extensive review of these
endorsements was presented in Section 3 of this report.
Despite the important progress made and efforts deployed, the relevance of DRR
governance is hindered by two categories of challenges. On one hand, there is a
challenge in developing plans that are relevant to challenges experienced in the
agriculture and food sectors. On the other hand, implementing the developed plans is
not always a reality. For example, although the African Union integrates DRR aspects in
its key documents such as the Agenda 206389, and the countries endorsed DRR-related
commitments, a recent assessment of the DRR implementation in Africa revealed the
following90:
The number of deaths particularly in regard to droughts have been reduced, but
economic losses from climate-related disasters did not substantially improve
since the 1970s;
Almost every sub-region (except the Economic Community of Central African
States, ECCAS) have developed their DRM policies and strategies. On one hand, a
88 FAO, 2015 89 AUC, 2015 90 UN ECA, 2015
37
few revisions are required (and being carried out in some cases) to clearly
update the policies with DRR and climate change aspects. On the other hand, the
sub-regional frameworks appear non-binding, which result in discrepancies
between adoption (at continental or regional level) and implementation at
country level.
Multi-sectoral DRR policies and strategies are still lacking in several countries
and sub-regions. Institutional capacity remains a major challenge, especially in
dealing with DRR issues within the agriculture and food sectors. There is still a
need for partners to support countries’ capacity development on DRR across and
within sectors, which requires not necessarily more but longer-term and
continuous funding
In terms of mainstreaming DRR in various sectors, eastern Africa appears to have
made substantial progress with the adoption of the IDDRSI Strategy. Despite its
focus on drought, it appears to be one of the most concrete and action-oriented
on the continent.
Nevertheless, the focus on drought as the policy issue for DRR in eastern Africa is yet to
grab the opportunity to effectively address other major categories of disasters in the
sub-region, such as floods and landslides. As further illustrated in the IDDRSI Strategy
Regional Programming Paper (RPP)91 and Country Programming Papers (CPP), floods
are mentioned as “intermittent” events for which only early warning was planned.
Evidence also suggests that floods are the most frequently recorded disasters in the sub-
region and, although affecting less people than droughts do, they cause most frequent
death (Figure 12). Furthermore, building resilience in drylands may not be very
effective by limiting the focus to pastoral activities. Livelihoods diversification is a
critical approach and includes, amongst other practices, cultivation and crops
development which are most vulnerable to flooding92.
91 IGAD, 2013a 92 Morton and Kerven, 2013
38
Figure 12. Historical records of deaths induced by droughts and floods in eastern Africa93
The above issues demonstrate that, in spite of efforts in strengthening DRR governance
in eastern Africa, it is important to address the weaknesses holistically. As a chain, the
weakness of the system lies at its weakest point which undermines the overall system
strength. Some options to address the weaknesses are presented below.
4.2 Options for enhancing DRR outcomes in eastern Africa
This section explores the options that can systematically build on the existing strengths
for DRR in the sub-region’s agriculture and food sectors.
4.2.1 Making early warning effective for early action in agriculture
Warning messages on potential threats are useful when they are early enough and
effective to trigger early action for prevention. In the eastern Africa sub-region, uneven
progress has been recorded in setting up early warning systems (EWS). The most
remarkable contribution is through the seasonal climate outlooks that are released by
the IGAD Climate Prediction and Application Centre (ICPAC). The outlooks involve
countries under both IGAD and EAC spatial coverage. However, in terms of resolution,
the outlooks remain coarse and, therefore, usable at the scale of the sub-region only.
Consequently, the regular outlooks cannot yet trigger early action at the farm level,
which is where the impacts are felt. The currently observed sudden variabilities in
weather patterns also amplify uncertainties in forecasts of the climatic conditions.
93 Processed with data from EM-DAT, 2016
39
Furthermore, there is still a need to improve the technological applications for hazards
warning that is relevant to socio-economic activities, particularly the agriculture sector.
For example, most of the drought assessments have been based on the Vegetation
Condition Index (VCI) or other vegetation indices, which are assessed through remote
sensing due to limited rain gauges. VCI tends to underestimate the spatial coverage of
areas under agricultural drought, because it is based on the vegetation condition, which
varies much with plant species and the soils characteristics. In this case, areas
undergoing water deficiency cannot be spotted with VCI as under drought conditions,
when they are covered with vegetation of extended roots and efficiency in water use or
soils with high water holding capacities94.
In addition to the assessments made on precipitation deviations (useful for
meteorological drought characterization) and vegetation conditions (useful for
characterizing socio-economic impacts), it would be useful to complement the forecasts
with assessments of soil moisture anomalies, which are most efficient in forecasting
agricultural droughts95,96 as well as increasing the efficiency of flood and landslides risks
modelling97,98. Countries in eastern Africa therefore need capacity building in that
regard, in addition to better automatic weather station network and capacities as well
as resources of the agro-meteorological services.
Currently, most of efforts on EWS focused on increasing the capacity for hazards
monitoring and warning service, which is not enough for effective EWS. Effective EWS
need to be established within a framework of four components, which, in addition to
hazards monitoring and warning service, are risk knowledge, dissemination and
communication, and response capability.
There are few countries in the sub-region that have developed and used comprehensive
risk knowledge with relevance for the agriculture and food sectors. Limited cases of
such knowledge development can be illustrated through the Rwanda’s National Risk
Atlas released in 2015 and focused on agriculture-relevant hazards such as droughts,
floods, landslides and windstorms. Ethiopia is also documenting its comprehensive
94 Agutu et al., 2017 95 Martínez-Fernández et al., 2016 96 Shukla et al., 2014 97 Massari et al., 2014 98 Piedallu et al., 2012
40
wereda (district) atlas. A risk atlas represents an important milestone, which needs to
be made dynamic with the combination of climatic forecasts and, by ripple effect,
translating climatic forecasts into meaningful potential climatic impacts on the ground.
Dissemination and communication of early warning information is also a challenge in
various aspects. The information is generally not timely released to affect agricultural
decisions and its language is not understandable by end-users. As a result, farmers’
behaviour does not change to prevent disasters: either they do not receive early
warning information in a language they understand or the timing of early warning
information to reach farmers is too short for agricultural activities to be adjusted. In
many cases, there is still a need to move beyond weather prediction of temperature and
likelihood of rainfall in order to predict the onset of drought or likely floods. A general
lack of awareness on what to do in what context also hinders the response capability at
most of the decision-making levels. Tailoring the messages to end-users and building
their capacities would thus be crucial, particularly the extension service.
4.2.2 Addressing population dynamics and constraints on natural resources
It is critical for countries in eastern Africa to consider their population growth and
natural resources constraints in the development of their disaster risk reduction plans.
On one hand, there is a predominance of drylands and limited natural resources
(particularly usable water and land). Evidence suggests that rural drylands are
surprisingly a major supplier of timber for construction, firewood and charcoal for
urban areas. In addition, prices of commodities in drylands dominated areas are not
convenient for both poor citizens (who find them high) and poor rural dwellers (who
struggle to sell them at low prices due to poor market sector development, while
degrading natural resources through overexploitation)99, particularly in fragile
ecosystems (such as drylands, mountains and wetlands) and forested areas. Such
degradation continuously aggravates the impacts of subsequent hazards.
Moreover, massive migration from rural areas and the prevalence of conflicts are also
part of subsequent emerging issues, when people are struggling to find economic
opportunities and options out of poverty100. Sustainable solutions to such issues were
mostly identified through agriculture and rural development. Furthermore, where
99 Cervigni and Morris, 2015 100 FAO, 2016b
41
climate risks threaten the agriculture sector, disaster risk reduction is one of the
sustainable solutions to migration101. Displacement due to hazards is an issue requiring
attention in eastern Africa. A baseline study indicated that floods alone have displaced
over 600 thousand people in 2016 in the Greater Horn of Africa102.
On the other hand, there is high reliance on rainfed agriculture for the majority of rural
dwellers settling closer to their exploitable natural resource base, resulting in high
population densities and pressure on natural resources. To illustrate:
Apart from Djibouti, more than half of the population is rural in the other eastern
African countries (Table 6).
Table 6. Snapshot on population in eastern African countries compared to global data103
Country or area Total population (thousands) in
2015
Population growth rate (per cent) 2010-2015
Proportion urban (per cent),
2015
Urbanization rate (per cent) 2010-
2015
World 7 324 782 1.1 54.0 0.9
More developed regions
1 259 588 0.3 78.3 0.3
Less developed regions
6 065 194 1.3 49.0 1.2
Least developed countries
940 125 2.3 31.4 1.7
Sub-Saharan Africa
949 175 2.6 37.9 1.4
Burundi 10 813 3.2 12.1 2.5
Djibouti 900 1.5 77.3 0.1
Ethiopia 98 942 2.6 19.5 2.3
Kenya 46 749 2.7 25.6 1.7
Rwanda 12 428 2.7 28.8 3.7
Somalia 11 123 2.9 39.6 1.2
South Sudan 12 152 4.0 18.8 1.0
Uganda 40 141 3.3 16.1 2.1
101 FAO, 2017c 102 UNISDR & IDMC, 2017 103 UN DESA, 2015b
42
The rates of urbanization are however high, compared to global averages. Rapid
urbanization, if unplanned, generally results in the creation of new disasters
related to poor land use104 in urban areas and increased pressure on natural
resources in rural areas to meet increasing urban demands105.
Population is increasing fast in eastern Africa. For example, Ethiopia’s population
has increased by about five folds from about 18 million in 1950 to more than 99
million in 2015. Consequently, the country, which was not yet on the list of the 21
countries most populated in 1950, is already in 2015 as the 13th country with
most people in the World. Similarly, Uganda has increased its population by more
than seven folds from about 5 million people in 1950 to more than 39 million
people in 2015. The median age of the population remains generally below 20
years old106.
Furthermore, considering the projected population growth between 2015 and
2050, eastern Africa will be represented by at least two countries among the
“nine countries expected to account for more than half of the world’s projected
population increase”107. As the majority of the people are rural dwellers (as seen
in Table 6), such increases in population will, on one hand, result into the
reduction of per capita natural resources (especially land and water) availability
to sustain livelihoods. On the other hand, consequences of unemployment
(particularly for a youth predominant portion) and the lack of opportunity will
require innovative and forward-looking plans. Such plans should aim at both
mitigating new societal risks from youth unemployment and lack of opportunity
as well as transforming the agriculture sector so that it can still make enough
food available while absorbing an important portion of the active population.
It was also demonstrated that high population numbers likely increase the
magnitude of disasters due to increased numbers of people exposed to
hazards108. Countries therefore need to design and implement forward-looking
policies that take into account the intricacies of rapid population growth, limited
104 UNISDR, 2016b 105 IGAD, 2016 106 UN DESA, 2015c 107 UN DESA, 2015b 108 Peduzzi, Dao, Herold and Mouton, 2009
43
natural resources availability, agro-based economies and variabilities of the
climate.
4.2.3 Need for risk-informed and sector-specific disaster risk management plans
At first glance, disaster risk reduction appears a less attractive investment, considering
the uncertainties and the lack of details of disaster risk information as well as weak
documentation on the returns of investment. The dilemma of disaster risk reduction is
to prove and visualize losses that have been avoided through DRR. It is thus necessary
to deploy efforts in collecting data, developing methodologies and capabilities for
analyses to inform decision-making.
It is also recognized that spending time in planning for disasters risk reduction,
including preparedness and response can limit disaster impacts and is saving precious
time needed when the disaster occurs, thus acting fast and most efficiently. These plans,
however, need to be sector and context specific in order to be effective109.
A good case in this regard is illustrated through Rwanda, where a one-year project was
designed to start in 2013 in order to establish disaster risk profiles (atlas) of the
country, including at local level110. This is key to facilitating the implementation of all
four priorities for action of the Sendai Framework. As a result, in 2015, a comprehensive
National Risk Atlas was produced, with a current focus on droughts, floods, landslides,
earthquakes and windstorms, which were selected due to their socio-economic impacts
on the country’s development. The Atlas is expected to assist the government in
coordinating actions in a proactive manner and to benefit a wide range of stakeholders.
In regards to the food and agriculture sectors, the Atlas can assist in aspects such as111:
using the drought hazard zonation maps in the development of agriculture
infrastructure such as irrigation schemes for the drought-prone zones;
using the drought hazard risk profile to develop insurance mechanisms for
specific regions or agricultural products;
prioritizing and focusing interventions;
developing contingency plans and improving preparedness; and
109 FAO, 2014 110 MIDIMAR, 2013a 111 MIDIMAR, 2015
44
adapting agricultural practices to specific areas, such as those prone to floods
and landslides.
In addition, the government developed a project for building capacities in DRM at local
and national levels, expected to start in 2013 and end in 2018. The project considered
strengthening capacities at all levels including communities’ capacities to cope with
disasters that (are likely to) affect them112.
To facilitate the implementation of Rwanda National Disaster Risk Management Policy, a
Disaster Risk Management Plan was also developed. In regards to food security, the plan
specifically suggest to meet short-term needs when they arise while restoring long-term
food security and reducing the needs for affected communities to adopt potentially
damaging coping strategies113.
Ethiopia is also another example where a Wereda (district) Disaster Risk Profiling is
being carried out based on 116 different indicators. Using a sample of 400 households
and about 10 Key Informant Interviews, the approach is expected to produce
comprehensive profiling on disaster risks. Targeting a total of 825 weredas
(administrative units in Ethiopia), the exercise has been completed for 337 weredas by
2016114.
In Kenya, the drought disaster management sector outstrips other disaster sectors. This
is favoured by a well-established National Drought Management Authority (NDMA),
which ensures the coordination of drought interventions in the country. NDMA
developed an Ending Drought Emergencies Common Programme Framework, which sets
the basis for all partners’ interventions to address drought emergencies that affect the
country, particularly its 23 of the 47 counties in the country. The 23 counties are in arid
and semi-arid lands (ASAL) and are considered highly prone to drought disasters. The
Ending Drought Emergencies (EDE) strategy is a good example of country uptake of the
sub-regional IGAD’s IDDRSI strategy Country Programming Paper115.
Due to the prevalence of climate-induced disasters that affect the agricultural sector in
eastern Africa, it is relevant for countries to address synergies between climate change
112 MIDIMAR, 2016 113 MIDIMAR, 2013b 114 NDRMC, 2016b 115 NDMA, 2012
45
adaptation and DRR, as well as integrating DRR as part of sustainable development and
renewable energy.
Risk-informed planning of agriculture and food sectors also implies that, after due
identification and assessment, decisions are taken in regards to both threats and
opportunities that arise from the risks. As a good practice, in regards to risks that are
classified as threats to the sectors, six different responses can be implemented:
- Avoid: implementing measures so that the threat cannot happen or its effect
cannot be felt. For example, given the alert of an imminent drought, it could be
decided to avoid any crops which have high water requirements and long
growing periods.
- Reduce: minimizing either the probability of occurrence or the impact of the
event. For example, given the alert of an imminent drought, it could be decided to
supplement agricultural activities with drip irrigation.
- Fallback: operationalizing contingency plans. For example, given the alert of an
imminent drought, a plan should be in place to provide for basic needs of the
affected people so that a famine situation does not occur. Alternatively,
communities may have alternative livelihoods in place, which are implemented
when a drought is likely to affect them.
- Transfer: implementing an insurance approach to take care of losses, may the
event occur. For example, considering that local crop cultivation is good for food
security in a given area, the farmers who implement recommended practices can
benefit from insurance coverage if a drought occurred and affected them.
- Accept: deciding to change nothing, as the change or actions taken would not be
worth implementing.
- Share: deciding to spread the cost of impacts to other stakeholders.
In regards to risks that are classified as opportunities, four main responses can be
implemented:
46
- Exploit: implement flexible measures so that, if the event occurs, it will yield
benefice. For example, given the likelihood of above normal rainfall, crops with
high water requirements could be planted;
- Share: deciding to spread the benefit of impacts to other stakeholders
- Enhance: implementing actions that favour the occurrence of the event. For
example, considering the likelihood of above normal rainfall, the land and
channels could be prepared to favour a vast area for flooding and infiltration;
- Reject: deciding to ignore the opportunity as the outcome of using it will not
generate additional value.
In all cases, a decentralised approach to DRR governance provides benefits in terms of
timely action at the community level. In the same perspective, it is crucial that disjointed
laws do not create overlapping mandates for institutions mandated by such laws. There
are also challenges in domesticating recommendations endorsed by States at sub-
regional and continental levels. Some of the issues in this regard are related to the
drafting of too broad or overambitious laws and policies, which become difficult to
implement116. Decentralization also faces implementation constraints, especially when
financial resources are inadequate and new institutions are created at the local level.
4.2.4 Financial resource allocation and mobilization for DRR
A bias is generally observed in funding allocation. To illustrate, an analysis of public
expenditures for climate change (which is the cause of major recurrent disasters) from
2008 to 2012 demonstrated that expenditure categorized for climate change was about
11%, with a focus on development projects and programs of medium to little relevance
to climate change. Highly relevant projects were however observed to dwindle. Several
projects of medium-relevance to climate change dominated the climate change
expenditures. Such expenditures focused on economic development while mentioning
climate change in the contextual background on the countries117.
In general, financing disaster risk reduction falls short. To illustrate, DRR funding
corresponds to less than 1% of humanitarian assistance. In addition, while there are
technological advances in early warning, they rarely trigger early action on funds 116 IFRC & UNDP, 2014 117Bird et al. 2016
47
availability and the expected disaster prevention. Resource mobilization for DRR is still
a challenge or, to some extent, only seriously considered when a disaster has already
occurred. Such an approach explains why disaster response activities are the most
implemented to the detriment of other aspects of disaster risk management such as
preparedness and recovery. However, even within the humanitarian assistance,
agriculture funding requirements remained short by 30% in 2015118.
In spite of the above, the average cost-benefit ratio of 1:4 has been documented for
investing in Disaster Risk Reduction119. In other words, costs incurred today due to
disasters could have been avoided by investing only one quarter of their equivalent in
Disaster Risk Reduction. Most of the resulting disasters today are thus the consequences
of underinvestment in DRR.
It is therefore key for decision makers to establish both commitment and innovative
approaches to leverage financial resources for disaster risk reduction and climate
change adaptation, as emphasized in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third
International Conference on Financing for Development120. This is critical and holds
success potential in the sub-region, because the disasters are climate-induced and affect
food and agriculture sectors that hold the largest share of rural dwellers employment.
Leveraging funding for DRR in food and agriculture sectors is thus an opportunity for
sustainable and climate resilient development of the sub-region.
4.2.5 Linking the development and humanitarian efforts
The World Humanitarian Summit was held in Istanbul from 23 to 24 May 2016, in
Istanbul. Among its seven round tables, one was dedicated to “natural disasters and
climate change: managing risks & crises differently” and contributed to the fourth action-
point (working differently to end need) of the five-point Agenda for Humanity. On this
Agenda, a publication with relevance to food and agriculture sectors was prepared121.
For this action-point, several commitments were made in respect to three
perspectives122:
118 Development Initiatives, 2016 119 ADB, 2016 120 UN DESA, 2015a 121 FAO, 2016c 122 WHS, 2016
48
Reinforce, do not replace, national and local systems: a strong emphasis was put
on building local capacities;
Anticipate, do not wait, for crises: it emerged a strong willingness to invest more
in disaster preparedness, including early warning, vulnerability assessment, risk
analysis and capacity strengthening, including of national actors;
Deliver collective outcomes, transcend humanitarian-development divides: it was
raised a need to implement a “new way of working” that meets people’s
immediate humanitarian needs while at the same time reducing risk and
vulnerability by working together towards collective outcomes over multiple-
year time frames and based on comparative advantage in each context.
Box 2. Core responsibilities of the Agenda for Humanity
4.2.6 Transcending socio-cultural barriers
Challenges are observed for livelihoods to continue with the business as usual, when
weather patterns change. Specifically, it was found that the transhumance culture of
pastoralists in drylands is increasingly challenged with the growing water scarcity, land
degradation, and drylands’ wells being flooded and covered with sand through sudden
events of rainfall particularly in the case of wadi and river banks overflow. Innovative
technologies and land use approaches are required for pastoralism to be sustained.
The local culture can also be a barrier for DRR in several cases, because some
communities resist to adopt new technologies (for example, cultivating drought
resistant sorghum in some areas is perceived as for the poorest and thus not acceptable)
or moving to safer places (e.g. leaving ancestors’ land in some areas is perceived by the
1. Global leadership to prevent and end conflicts: An end to human suffering requires political
solutions, unity of purpose and sustained leadership and investment in peaceful societies
2. Uphold the norms that safeguard humanity: Even wars have limits: minimizing human
suffering and protecting civilians requires strengthening compliance with international law
3. Leave no one behind: Honouring our commitment to leave no one behind requires reaching
everyone in situations of conflict, disasters, vulnerability and risk
4. Change people’s lives – from delivering aid to ending need: Ending need requires reinforcing
local systems, anticipating crises and transcending the humanitarian-development divide
5. Invest in humanity: Accepting and acting upon our shared responsibilities for humanity
requires political, institutional and financial investments.
49
community as a cultural offense, despite the risk proneness of the land). Efforts should
therefore be made for both behaviour change and further understanding of social
incentives that can make interventions sustainable.
Many countries, communities and institutions are also stuck in the “culture of disaster
response” rather than a “culture of prevention” that addresses underlying risks
proactively. In some countries, there are several generations that experienced
dependence on recurrent food assistance. In addition, if early warning is issued, the
approach from some governments and development partners is to prepare for resource
mobilization for disaster response and for communities to stand on expectation for
assistance. Further awareness raising, especially through exposure to and
demonstration of DRR effective approaches and technologies could be crucial in
triggering cultural shifts at all levels.
4.2.7 Infrastructure development and technology transfer
In most rural areas of eastern Africa, impacts of climate-related risks are amplified by
inadequate infrastructure in regards to roads, telecommunications, electricity networks
as well as rain or surface water harvesting, flood mitigation and groundwater extraction
and recharge.
Poor roads infrastructure and networks limit food access and markets development.
Due to the diversity of agro-ecologies, the development of markets and regional trade
for agricultural commodities have the potential to attenuate climatic risks and food
insecurity, specifically through the commodities pricing, as well as the management of
post-harvest losses, storage, processing and stockpiling. In addition, inadequate electric
energy network and technologies for food processing, storage and conservation often
lead to, on one hand, losses of agricultural products in areas of over-production. On the
other hand, several areas suffer from nutrition and food deficiencies due to the
incapacity to process and conserve their agricultural products during favourable
periods.
Inadequate water infrastructure and technology also hinders the capacity to attenuate
effects of droughts and floods. The infrastructure and technological limitations thus
constrain the diversity of food types that the community can access and often
50
accentuate malnutrition rates in areas affected by recurrent climatic variability and
change.
To address the challenges, there are indigenous knowledge and local practices which,
although challenged with climate change and variability, could be strengthened.
Agricultural research to a large extent has been driven by donor programmes. It is
opportune to approach a demand-driven agricultural research that is linked with
extension service, particularly aiming to build on local practices and technologies,
improved crop varieties and livestock breeds, drought resistant crops, water
management, land restoration, as well as addressing crop and livestock pests and
diseases.
Innovative practices are yet to be upscaled for meaningful results. For example, in arid
and semi-arid areas, there are cases of successful development of aquaculture123. This
potential (and other innovative practices) needs to be tested and upscaled in eastern
Africa, particularly along coastal areas.
123 FAO, 2011
51
5 Conclusions
Climate related disasters remain a major threat for sustainable development in general,
as well as agriculture and food security in eastern Africa. The impacts in the sub-region
have been increasing and mainly related to droughts, floods and landslides. Average
decadal numbers of people affected by droughts continuously increased, and they were
multiplied seven folds between the 1980 baseline and the 2011 records. By 2015, at
least 157 million people have been affected by droughts since 1971. Floods and
landslides are the second major category that affected an important number of people.
The huge impacts in eastern Africa are mostly felt in the agriculture and food sectors.
Agriculture is the main livelihood for the majority of rural dwellers in the sub-region
and employs up to 60 percent of the population in some of the countries. The
agricultural practices are vulnerable due to the predominance of rainfed agriculture in
dryland agro-ecologies. In addition, over 56 percent of the sub-region is formed by arid
and semi-arid lands, which exhibit highly variable and sparse rainfall. Such rainfall
patterns easily trigger agricultural droughts in rainfed agricultural systems as well as
the subsequent food shortages and poverty cycles. Furthermore, abnormal variabilities
in weather patterns, including those induced by El Nino and La Nina phenomena, result
in alarming situations that hinder eastern African countries’ progress towards
sustainable development, food and nutrition security.
To address the challenges, countries have adopted disaster risk reduction (DRR) as an
approach for sustainable development. Progress was made in setting up institutions.
However, some missing aspects limit the potential of efforts so far deployed to trigger a
paradigm shift for climate-resilient agriculture and food sectors in the sub-region.
Deploying further efforts in support to DRR in agriculture and food sectors would thus
be crucial, particularly through the following seven main categories: (1) making early
warning effective for early action in agriculture, (2) addressing population dynamics
and constraints on natural resources, (3) developing risk-informed and sector-specific
disaster risk management plans, (4) financial resource allocation and mobilization for
DRR, (5) linking development and humanitarian efforts, (6) transcending socio- cultural
barriers and (7) infrastructure development and technology transfer.
52
References
1. ADB. 2016. Supporting Disaster Risk Reduction. Asian Development Fund’s 12th
Replenishment Meeting, 24-27 February 2016. Asian Development Bank.
Kathmandu.
2. Aguilar-Manjarrez, J., Nath, S. S. 1998. A strategic reassessment of fish farming
potential in Africa. CIFA technical paper 32. ISBN 92-5-104139-3. Rome, FAO.
3. Agutu, N. O., Awange, J. L., Zerihun, A., Ndehedehe, C. E., Kuhn, M. & Fukuda, Y.
2017. Assessing Multi-satellite Remote Sensing, Reanalysis, and Land Surface
Models' Products in Characterizing Agricultural Drought in East Africa. Remote
sensing of environment. 194: 287-302.
4. AU. 2004. Africa Regional Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction. Africa Union (AU).
Addis Ababa.
5. AU. 2016. Programme of Action for the Implementation of the Sendai Framework for
Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 in Africa. Addis Ababa.
6. AUC. 2015. Agenda 2063 Framework Document. The Africa We Want. African Union
Commission (AUC). Addis Ababa.
7. Bahal’okwibale, P. M. M., Manzungu, E. & Kileshye-Onema, J.M. 2012. ICT-based
identification and characterisation of small reservoirs in the Limpopo river basin
in Zimbabwe. Environment and Natural Resources Research. 2 (3): 25-42.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/enrr.v2n3p25
8. Bird, N., Asante, F., Bawakyillenuo, S., Trujillo, N. C., Eshetu, Z., Tumushabe, G.,
Yanda, P., Norman, M., Tagoe, C. A., Amsalu, A., Ashiabi, N., Kateka, A., Mushi, D.,
Muhumuza, T. & Simane, B. 2016. Public spending on climate change in Africa.
Experiences from Ethiopia, Ghana, Tanzania & Uganda. Overseas Development
Institute. London.
9. Burundi. 2014. National Communication Strategy for climate change adaptation
and early warning on extreme weather events (2014-2018). Ministry of water,
environment, land use and urban planning. Bujumbura.
10. Burundi. 2015. National progress report on the implementation of the Hyogo
Framework for Action 2013-2015. Bujumbura.
11. Burundi. No date. Stratégie Nationale de prévention des risques et de gestion des
catastrophes et plan d’action national 2012-2015. Bujumbura.
53
12. Cervigni, R. & Morris, M. 2015. Confronting Drought in Africa’s Drylands:
Opportunities for Enhancing Resilience. International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development/The World Bank.
13. Crespi, V. & Lovatelli, A. 2010. Aquaculture in desert and arid lands: Development
constraints and opportunities. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture proceedings No. 20.
ISBN 978-92-5-106992-9
14. Degenovine, K. M. 2011. Semi-arid environments: agriculture, water supply and
vegetation. Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York
15. Deutsche Bank, 2014. Agricultural value chains in Sub-Saharan Africa: From a
development challenge to a business opportunity. Deutsche Bank Research.
Frankfurt.
16. Development Initiatives. 2016. Global Humanitarian Assistance 2016 report.
Development Initiatives Poverty Research Ltd.
17. EAC. 2011. 4th EAC Development Strategy (2011/12-2015/16). Deepening and
Accelerating Integration. East African Community (EAC). Arusha.
18. EAC. 2013. Report of the public hearings on the EAC disaster risk reduction and
management bill 2013. http://www.unisdr.org/files/48230_drrpublichearing
report.pdf (accessed 10 November 2016)
19. EMDAT. 2016. International Emergency Database. http://www.emdat.be (accessed
16 December 2016)
20. FAO. 1998. A strategic reassessment of fish farming potential in Africa. CIFA
Technical Paper 32. Rome
21. FAO. 2011. Aquaculture in desert and arid lands: Development constraints and
opportunities. Rome, FAO.
22. FAO. 2012. FAO’s renewed commitment to a hunger-free Horn of Africa.
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/emergencies/docs/DG%20Policy%2
0factsheet.pdf (accessed 18 December 2016).
23. FAO. 2013. Resilient Livelihoods – Disaster Risk Reduction for Food and Nutrition
Security Framework Programme. Rome. FAO.
24. FAO. 2014. Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction in Agriculture: an assessment of
progress made against the Hyogo Framework for Action.
https://www.unisdr.org/2014/docs/un-drr/FAO-GAR15-InputPaper.pdf
(accessed 18 December 2016)
54
25. FAO, IFAD & WFP. 2015. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015. Meeting the
2015 international hunger targets: taking stock of uneven progress. FAO. Rome.
26. FAO. 2016. The State of Food and Agriculture: Climate change, agriculture and food
security, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.
27. FAO. 2016. Migration, agriculture and rural development: Addressing the root
causes of migration and harnessing its potential for development. Rome
28. FAO. 2016. FAO Position Paper: The World Humanitarian Summit. Rome
29. FAO. 2017. The impact of disasters on agriculture: Addressing the information gap.
FAO. Rome.
30. FAO. 2017. The future of food and agriculture. Trends and challenges. Rome.
31. FAO. 2017. Agriculture and migration in the context of climate change. Rome.
32. FAO & ICARDA. 2017. Crop ecology, cultivation and uses of cactus pear. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and International Center for
Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA). Rome.
33. FDRE. 2010. Ethiopia’s agricultural sector policy and investment framework.
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia (FDRE).
34. FDRE. 2010. Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) 2010/11-2014/15. Ministry of
Finance and Economic Development, FDRE.
35. FDRE. 2011. Climate Resilient Green Economy. Environmental Protection Authority,
FDRE.
36. FDRE. 2013. Disaster risk management and food security sector Strategic
Programme and Investment Framework. Ministry of Agriculture, FDRE.
37. FDRE. 2013. National Policy and Strategy on Disaster Risk Management. FDRE.
38. FDRE. 2016. Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) 2015/16-2019/20. National
Planning Commission, FDRE.
39. Fitzgibbon, C. & Crosskey, A. 2013. Disaster risk reduction management in the
drylands in the Horn of Africa. Technical Consortium Brief 4. International Livestock
Research Institute. Nairobi.
40. GWPEA. 2015. Assessment of Drought Resilience Frameworks in the Horn of Africa.
Integrated Drought Management Program in the Horn of Africa (IDMP HOA).
Global Water Partnership eastern Africa (GWPEA). Entebbe.
55
41. Holmgren, K. & Oberg, H. 2006. Climate change in southern and eastern Africa
during the past millenium and its implications for societal development.
Environment, Development and Sustainability (2006) 8: 185–195
42. Ibrahim, H. & Olaloku, E. 2000. Improving cattle for milk, meat and traction. Edited
by ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute). Nairobi.
43. IFRC. 2012. Drought 2011: How Kenya Responded. IFRC.
44. IFRC & UNDP. 2014. Effective law and regulation for disaster risk reduction: a multi
country report. New York.
45. IGAD. 2012. IGAD Hydrological Cycle Observing System (HYCOS). Revised Project
Document. Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD).
http://www.whycos.org/whycos/documents/igad-hycos-rev-
project_documents_2012.pdf (accessed 10 November 2016)
46. IGAD. 2013. IGAD Regional Programming Paper (RPP) for the Drought Disaster
Resilience and Sustainability Initiative (IDDRSI).
47. IGAD. 2013. The IDDRSI Strategy. IGAD Drought Disaster Resilience and
Sustainability Initiative. Intergovernmental Authority on Development.
http://resilience.igad.int/attachments/article/237/20131020%20
IDDRSI%20Strategy%20Revised.pdf
48. IGAD. 2015. Statement from the forty first climate outlook forum for the Greater
Horn of Africa (GHACOF41) for September to December 2015 rainfall season.
Kunduchi Beach Hotel, 24-25 August 2015, Dar Es Salaam, IGAD Climate
Prediction and Applications Centre.
49. INFORM. 2016. Index for Risk management. http://www.inform-index.org
(accessed on 17 November 2016).
50. INFORM. 2017. Index for Risk management. http://www.inform-index.org
(accessed on 14 August 2017).
51. IPC. 2010. Integrated Food Security Phase Classification. Uganda Food Security Brief.
Special Brief. Post First Season 2010 Analysis. November 2010 Issue. Integrated
Food Security Phase Classification (IPC).
52. IPC. 2016. What is the added value of IPC. Integrated Food Security Phase
Classification (IPC). http://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-about/what-is-the-added-
value-of-ipc/en/ (accessed on 30 November 2016).
53. Kenya. 2010. Agriculture Sector Development Strategy 2010-2020. Government of
Kenya.
56
54. Kenya. 2012. Kenya Post-Disaster Needs Assessment 2008-2011 Drought.
Government of Kenya.
55. Kerven, C. & Morton, J. 2013. Livelihood and basic service support in the drylands in
the Horn of Africa. Technical Consortium Brief 3. International Livestock Research
Institute. Nairobi.
56. Martínez-Fernández, J., González-Zamora, A., Sánchez, N., Gumuzzio, A. & Herrero-
Jiménez, C. M. 2016. Satellite soil moisture for agricultural drought monitoring:
Assessment of the SMOS derived Soil Water Deficit Index. Remote Sensing of
Environment. 177: 277-286
57. Masih, I., Maskey, S., Mussa, F.E.F. & Trambauer, P. 2014. A review of droughts on
the African continent: a geospatial and long-term perspective. Hydrological Earth
System Sciences. 18: 3635-3649.
58. Massari, C., Brocca, L., Moramarco, T., Tramblay, Y., Lescot, J.-F. D. 2014. Potential
of soil moisture observations in flood modelling: Estimating initial conditions and
correcting rainfall. Advances in Water Resources. 74: 44-53
59. Mayega, R. W., Wafula, M. R., Musenero, M., Omale, A., Kiguli, J., Orach, G.C.,
Kabagambe, G. & Bazeyo W. 2013. A situational analysis of priority disaster
hazards in Uganda: findings from a hazard and vulnerability analysis. East Afr J
Public Health. 10(2): 380-386.
60. MIDIMAR. 2012. The national disaster management policy. Rwanda Ministry of
Disaster Management and Refugee Affairs (MIDIMAR). Kigali.
61. MIDIMAR. 2013. Development of Comprehensive (National and Local) Disaster Risk
Profiles for enhancing Disaster Management in Rwanda Project. MIDIMAR. Kigali.
62. MIDIMAR. 2013. National Disaster Risk Management Plan. MIDIMAR. Kigali.
63. MIDIMAR. 2015. The National Risk Atlas of Rwanda. MIDIMAR.
http://midimar.gov.rw/uploads/tx_download/National_Risk_Atlas_of_Rwanda_ele
ctronic_version.pdf
64. MIDIMAR. 2016. Building national and local capacities for disaster risk
management in Rwanda. http://midimar.gov.rw/uploads/tx_download/
Brochure_BUILDING_NATIONAL_AND_LOCAL_CAPACITIES_FOR_DISASTER_RISK_
MANAGEMENT_IN_RWANDA_Projects_01.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2016)
65. Munich Re. 2012 in GFDRR. 2015. Investing in Resilience. Global Facility for
Disaster Risk Reduction (GFDRR). The World Bank. Washington D.C.
57
66. NDMA. 2012. Sector plan for drought risk management and Ending Drought
Emergencies 2013-2017. National Drought Management Authority (NDMA),
Ministry of Devolution and Planning.
67. NDRMC. 2016. Food supply prospects for the year 2016. National Disaster Risk
Management Commission (NDRMC) of Ethiopia.
68. NDRMC. 2016. Wereda Disaster Risk Profiling Status. NDRMC.
http://profile.dppc.gov.et/Pages/Wereda_Disaster_Risk_Profile_Status.aspx
(accessed on 19 December 2016)
69. NOAA. 2016. Historical El Nino/La Nina episodes (1950-present). USA National
Weather Service’s Climate Prediction Center.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyea
rs.shtml (accessed 17 December 2016)
70. Peduzzi, P., Dao, H., Herold, C. & Mouton F. 2009. Assessing global exposure and
vulnerability towards natural hazards. The Disaster Risk Index. Natural Hazards
and Earth System Sciences. 9: 1149-1159.
71. Piedallu, C., Gegout, J.-C., Perez, V., Lebourgeois, F. 2012. Soil water balance
performs better than climatic water variables in tree species distribution
modelling. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 22(4): 470-482
72. Resilience Investments Tracker. 2016. Kenya Resilience Investments Tracker,
http://kenya.droughtresilience.info (accessed 16 December 2016)
73. Shukla, S., McNally, A., Husak, G., Funk, C. 2014. A seasonal agricultural drought
forecast system for food-insecure regions of East Africa. Hydrology and Earth
System Sciences. 18: 3907-3921
74. Simmers, I. 2005. Understanding water in a dry environment: Hydrological
processes in arid and semi-arid zones. A.A. Balkema Publisher. Lisse
75. SWALIM. 2016. El Niño: how SWALIM supported early warning and preparedness.
Somalia Water and Land Information Management (SWALIM).
http://www.faoswalim.org/article/el-ni%C3%B1o-how-swalim-supported-early-
warning-and-preparedness (accessed 19 December 2016)
76. Uganda. 2010. Uganda Vision 2040. Republic of Uganda.
77. Uganda. 2011. National Policy for Disaster Preparedness and Management. Republic
of Uganda.
78. UN. 2011. Global Drylands: A UN system-wide response, prepared by the
Environment Management Group, United Nations.
58
79. UN. 2016. Report of the open-ended intergovernmental expert working group on
indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction. Agenda item 19 (c).
Seventy-first session. United Nations General Assembly.
80. UN DESA. 2015. Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference
on Financing for Development. United Nations Department of Economic and Social
Affairs (UN DESA).
81. UN DESA. 2015. Population, Consumption and the Environment. UN DESA.
82. UN DESA. 2015. World Population Prospects. The 2015 Revision, Key Findings and
Advance Tables. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP.241.
83. UNDP. 2017. Journey to extremism in Africa: Drivers, incentives and the tipping point
for recruitment. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
84. UN ECA. 2014. Regional Assessment and Good Practice Synthesis Report on
Mainstreaming and Implementing Disaster Risk Reduction and Management in
Africa. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UN ECA).
85. UN ECA. 2015. Assessment report on mainstreaming and implementing disaster risk
reduction and management in Africa. UN ECA.
86. UNISDR. 2014. Progress and Challenges in Disaster Risk Reduction. A contribution
towards the development of policy indicators for the Post-2015 Framework on
Disaster Risk Reduction. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction
(UNISDR). Geneva.
87. UNISDR. 2015. 2015 disasters in numbers. UNISDR
http://www.unisdr.org/files/47804_2015disastertrendsinfographic.pdf (accessed
17 November 2016)
88. UNISDR. 2015. UNISDR Annual Report 2015. 2014-15 Biennium Work Programme
Final Report.
89. UNISDR. 2016. East Africa passes landmark disaster risk bill.
https://www.unisdr.org/archive/48230 (accessed 16 December 2016)
90. UNISDR. 2016. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. UNISDR.
Geneva.
91. UNISDR and IDMC. 2017. Displacement in the Greater Horn of Africa: A Disaster Risk
Reduction Perspective. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR)
and Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC). Nairobi
59
92. WB. 2010. Report on the status of Disaster Risk Reduction in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery. The International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank (WB).
93. WB. 2016. Data and Statistics.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/CLASS.XLS
(accessed 14 December 2016)
94. WEF. 2017. The Global Risks Report 2017, 12th Edition. World Economic Forum
(WEF). Geneva.
95. WFP. 2008. Comprehensive Food Security & Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA) for
Burundi. World Food Programme (WFP).
96. WHS. 2016. Commitments to Action. World Humanitarian Summit (WHS). 23 to 24
May 2016. Istanbul.
60
Annex 1. List of key informants consulted in the field
No. Name, Title Institution Country
1. Mahdi Abdi Osman, Directeur Exécutif
Office National d’Assistance aux Refugiés et Sinistrés (ONARS)
Djibouti
2. Chardi Houssein Office National d’Assistance aux Refugiés et Sinistrés (ONARS)
Djibouti
3. Liban Hassan Ismail, Adjoint Programme Manager/ Sécurité Alimentaire et Moyen d’Existence),
Action Contre la Faim (ACF) Djibouti
4. Isabelle Yahiaoui, Country Director
Action Contre la Faim (ACF) Djibouti
5. Abderrahmane Harouna N’DONGO, Coordinateur National Djibouti
SOS Sahel Djibouti
6. Sandratra Rakotoarison, Country Director
Johanniter International Assistance Djibouti
7. Radwan Aden Mahamoud, Information and databases Manager
Secretariat Exécutif de Gestion des Risques des Catastrophes
Djibouti
8. Idriss Ahmed Hared, Chargé de Programme
United Nations Development Programme in Djibouti
Djibouti
9. Houssein Abdallah Abas, President
Association de la Caravane du Développement de Gobaad
Djibouti
10. Habib Mohamed Ebo, Tresorier
Association de la Caravane du Développement de Gobaad
Djibouti
11. Daher Okieh, President Groupement paysan agricole d’Assamo & Association agropastorale Djiboutienne (member of the East Africa Farmers Federation)
Djibouti
12. RachidIlmi Idriss, Coordinator in Djibouti
IGAD Djibouti
13. Ahmed Mohamed Ali, Directeur de l’Agriculture
Djibouti Djibouti
14. Leone Magliocchetti FAO - Djibouti Djibouti
61
15. Anne A. Onyango, Director (Policy Research and Regulations)
Minsitry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries
Kenya
16. William Marwanga, Economic Development Specialist
World Vision Kenya
17. Francis Matheka
UNDP Kenya
18. Nahashon Kipruto, Food Security Nutrition Surveillance Program Manager
Action Contre la Faim (ACF) Kenya
19. Geophrey Sikei, National Technical Manager
FEWSNET Kenya
20. Julius Kabubi, Programme Analyst
UNISDR, Regional Office for Africa Kenya
21. Allan Kute, Programme Officer (Vulenrability Analysis and Mapping Unit)
WFP Kenya Kenya
22. James Oduor, Chief Executive Officer
National Drought Management Authority (NDMA)
Kenya
23. Philippe Habinshuti, Director of Disaster Response and Recovery Unit
National Disaster Management Technical Committee, Ministry of Disaster Management and Refugee Affairs (MIDIMAR)
Rwanda
24. Catherine Uwimana, Vice Mayor in charge of Social Affairs
Gakenke District Rwanda
25. Aime Francois Niyonsenga, Vice Mayor in charge of Economic Development
Gakenke District Rwanda
26. Sun CHO, Climate change and green growth specialist
UNDP Rwanda
27. Antoine Ruvebana, Permanent Secretary
Ministry of Disaster Management and Refugee Affairs (MIDIMAR)
Rwanda
28. Charles Murekezi, Director General in charge of Agriculture Development
Ministry of Agriculture and Animal resources
Rwanda
29. Bernardin Uzayisaba, Programme Analyst,
UNDP Rwanda
62
Environment
30. Denis Hagekimana, Director of Agriculture and natural resources
Gakenke District Rwanda
31. Innocent Bisangwa, Environment and Climate change specialist
Ministry of Agriculture Rwanda
32. Abera Kassa, Director Disaster Risk Reduction Directorate, National Disaster Risk Management Commission
Ethiopia
33. Abubeker Ali, Country Team Leader for Building Resilience in Africa’s Drylands
FAO Ethiopia
63
Annex 2. List of participants to the technical workshop
No. Names Title/ Organization Country of duty
station
1 Patrick Kormawa Sub-regional Coordinator and
Representative to AU and UNECA/FAO
Ethiopia
2 Nibaruta Anicet Executive Secretary of Burundi DRR
platform and Deputy Director General of
Civil Protection Department
Burundi
3 Ndabemeye Gerard Director General/ Ministry of Agriculture Burundi
4 Radwan Aden Mohamoud HSIG/Secrétariat Exécutif de Gestion des
Risques des catastrophes
Djibouti
5 Abraham Feyissa Programme Officer/WFP
Ethiopia
6 Almaz Girmay Disaster Risk Reduction Team
Leader/National Disaster Risk
Management Commission
Ethiopia
7 Berhanu Assefa Partnerships Officer/UNOPS
Ethiopia
8 Misrak Gizaw Programme Assistant / FAO
Ethiopia
9 Patrick Bahal’okwibale Associate Professional Officer for Climate
change adaptation and mitigation in
drylands/FAO
Ethiopia
10 Sebastian Grey Natural Resources Management
Officer/FAO
Ethiopia
11 Seth D. Vordzorgbe Disaster Risk Management specialist Ghana
12 Adan Bika Head of Dryland Development,
ICPALD/IGAD
Kenya
13 Mohamud Mohamed
Mohamud
Director General/Ministry of Agriculture Somalia
14 Mohamed Elmi Gure Head of Monitoring and
Evaluation/Ministry of Agriculture
Somalia
15 Hakuza Annunciata Senior Economist/Ministry of Agriculture Uganda
16 Pamela Komujuni Kalule Senior Disaster Management
Officer/Office of the Prime Minister
Uganda
The eastern Africa sub-region has experienced
recurrent climate-related impacts, with damaging
effects on sustainable development, agriculture and
food security. The frequency of events and the
magnitude of impacts have been rising. To illustrate,
since 1971, the number of people affected by
droughts has been multiplied seven folds, exceeding
157 million people in four decades. Rising impact
trends were also observed for floods and landslides,
which, although affecting lesser people, are causing
more fatalities.
In this report, natural potential and vulnerabilities of
the sub-region’s agro-ecologies are explored.
Institutional settings to address disaster risks are
also highlighted. Finally, options are presented to
enhance the climate resilience of agriculture and food
sectors in the sub-region.
Contact information:
Sub-regional Office for Eastern Africa (SFE)
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
CMC Road, Bole Sub city, Kebele 12/13
P.O Box 5536, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: +251 11 647 88 88
I7719EN/1/10.17
